Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    07 Vda. de Corpuz v. Commanding General, 1978

    Uploaded by

    evgciik
    1) The petitioner, Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz, was awarded P6,000 plus P200 in burial expenses by the Workmen's Compensation Unit after her husband, a technical sergeant, died in connection with his military service. 2) Despite the award becoming final and executory, the respondent Commanding General only paid P2,950 and deducted P3,000 and P250 citing other benefits received under different laws. 3) The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's writ of mandamus, finding that the respondent had a ministerial duty to pay the full award amount as the decision was final and no longer subject to alteration. The respondent's refusal to pay constituted an unlawful act

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    07 Vda. de Corpuz v. Commanding General, 1978

    Uploaded by

    evgciik
    87 views1 page
    1) The petitioner, Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz, was awarded P6,000 plus P200 in burial expenses by the Workmen's Compensation Unit after her husband, a technical sergeant, died in connection with his military service. 2) Despite the award becoming final and executory, the respondent Commanding General only paid P2,950 and deducted P3,000 and P250 citing other benefits received under different laws. 3) The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's writ of mandamus, finding that the respondent had a ministerial duty to pay the full award amount as the decision was final and no longer subject to alteration. The respondent's refusal to pay constituted an unlawful act

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner, Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz, was awarded P6,000 plus P200 in burial expenses by the Workmen's Compensation Unit after her husband, a technical sergeant, died in connection with his military service. 2) Despite the award becoming final and executory, the respondent Commanding General only paid P2,950 and deducted P3,000 and P250 citing other benefits received under different laws. 3) The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's writ of mandamus, finding that the respondent had a ministerial duty to pay the full award amount as the decision was final and no longer subject to alteration. The respondent's refusal to pay constituted an unlawful act

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    87 views1 page

    07 Vda. de Corpuz v. Commanding General, 1978

    Uploaded by

    evgciik
    1) The petitioner, Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz, was awarded P6,000 plus P200 in burial expenses by the Workmen's Compensation Unit after her husband, a technical sergeant, died in connection with his military service. 2) Despite the award becoming final and executory, the respondent Commanding General only paid P2,950 and deducted P3,000 and P250 citing other benefits received under different laws. 3) The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's writ of mandamus, finding that the respondent had a ministerial duty to pay the full award amount as the decision was final and no longer subject to alteration. The respondent's refusal to pay constituted an unlawful act

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz v.

    The Commanding General of the Philippine Army


    Guerrero, J. September 30, 1978 G.R. No. L-44077
    Writ of execution, mandamus. Once a decision has become final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution.
    Doctrine The final and executory decision may only be assailed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, irregularity in the entry, or if it is
    vitiated by fraud. If it is not assailed, then the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution to enforce the award.
    T/Sgt (technical sergeant) Cornelio Corpuz died in connection with his military service.
    Facts Vda. De Corpuz v. Republic of the Philippines: Acting Referee Riego de Dios of the Workmens Compensation Unit awarded
    his wife, petitioner Eliodora Vda. De Corpuz, and children P6,000 plus P200 burial expenses. The award became final and
    executory and was indorsed by the Sol. Gen. to the respondent Commanding General for payment.
    However, instead of full payment, respondent prepared General Voucher W-7023 worth P2,950 as payment: deducting
    P3,000 for the gratuity paid to petitioner under RA 610 (Armed Forces Death Gratuity and Disability Pension Act of 1951)
    and P250 for burial expenses under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code, saying that these benefits and those
    under the Workmens Compensation Act (WCA) were mutually exclusive.
    Despite petitioners protest against the deductions, respondent refused to pay.
    Petitioner brought the matter to the Office of the President: OP ruled for petitioner, held that deductions did not have legal
    basis. Respondent insisted that awarding the full amount under the WCA would be double compensation but Assistant
    Executive Secretary Zamora told him that although he had a cause of action for reimbursement against petitioner, respondent
    should file the appropriate case and not simply deduct it from the award in the decision by the WCU.
    Respondent was again directed to pay the entire amount of the death benefits awarded by the WCU, but he refused.
    Hence, petitioner filed the petition for mandamus.

    Ratio/Issues I. W/N the Commanding General should be compelled to pay the full award of P6,200 under the WCA (YES)
    (1) DOCTRINE. Petitioner is entitled under the law to receive the full benefits under the WCA. The decision of the WCU is
    final and executory. It cannot be changed or altered by the implementing officer because he has a ministerial duty to
    comply with the decision. The refusal of respondent to pay the full award is an unlawful neglect to perform an act which
    the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his office. Mandamus is a proper remedy. Clearly, there is no other
    plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law than the issuance of this writ especially in this case where
    petitioner sought the help of the OP which consistently ruled in her favor but failed to convince respondent to effect the
    full payment of the award.
    (2) Antonio Falcon v. Mathay Sr. SC granted mandamus to compel Auditor General to approve payment of an award by the
    Workmens Compensation Commission. Even SC cannot alter the award when the decision becomes final.

    II. W/N the grant of mandamus would result to compelling respondent to commit double compensation (NO)
    (1) OSG for respondent: mandamus is improper because it should not be issued to compel respondent to do an unlawful act.
    Cites Republic of the Philippines v. Workmens Compensation Commission in arguing that RA 610 bars payment under
    other laws such as the WCA. If a benefit is paid under RA 610, one may not be paid again under the WCA. Only the
    excess of the award under the WCA may be paid. RA 610 provides for such bar against double compensation1.
    (2) SC: argument fails because the decision in this case is final and executory. The finality was not disputed, hence it is the
    case of Falcon v. Mathay Sr. that applies. The fact that petitioner was already paid under RA 610 was not raised at the
    proper time during the hearing before the WCU, thus this resulted in the full award under the WCA, the Sol. Gen. even
    failed to appeal the WCUs decision.
    (3) The difference between this case and in RP v. Doyon is that in Doyon, the fact that RA 610 benefits were already paid was
    raised at the proper time. Furthermore, the Doyon doctrine (WCA minus RA 610 benefits should be awarded because if
    RA 610 benefits are not deducted, there would be double compensation) was re-examined in RP v. WCC and Vda. De
    Sanchez where SC held that amounts paid under RA 610 should not be charged against the award under the WCA because
    the award under RA 610 is given as a gratuity to past services and added risk taken by military personnel, while the award
    under WCA is to ameliorate the injuries or death of the employees dependents. The ruling in Vda. De Sanchez deducting
    the RA 610 benefits was merely to conform to precedent.
    (4) Petitioner: RA 610 is intended to give additional benefits, as shown by the increase in gratuity from P3,000 to P6,000.
    (5) SC: not the proper time to re-examine the Doyon doctrine. The right of petitioner to the enforcement of the whole award
    under the Workmen's Compensation Act is clear because the award has become final and executory thus, petitioner is
    entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution.
    (6) Any discussion as to the issue of whether or not the benefits under RA 610 should be deducted from the benefits under
    WCA given that the fact of payment under RA 610 is properly raised at the hearing would be obiter dictum.
    (7) An examination of the doctrine would result to putting in issue the validity of the WCUs award, a decision that is final
    and executory and may not be assailed collaterally in a petition for the writ of mandamus.
    Held Mandamus GRANTED.
    Prepared by: Lemarie Suing [ Admin | Prof. Waga ]

    1
    Sec. 5. Exclusive right to compensation. The rights and remedies granted by this Act to an employee by reason of a personal injury entitling him to
    compensation shall exclude all other rights and remedies accruing to the employee, his personal representatives, dependents or nearest of kins against
    the employer under the Civil Code and other law, because of said injury.

    Sec. 9. Repeal or modification of laws. Except as hereinafter provided, any gratuity or pension revived under the provisions of this Act shall be in
    addition to any retirement pay payable under existing laws. Provided, That no person who has received the death or disability benefits under Republic
    Act Numbered Five Hundred seventy-three shall be entitled to the benefits of this Act. No payment shall hereafter be made to the beneficiaries of
    deceased officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine Constabulary under the provisions of Republic Act
    Numbered Thirty or any other law granting similar benefits to officers and employees generally, of the national, provincial or municipal government.

    You might also like