1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; REGIONAL OFFICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. — Regional Offices of the Department of Labor have original jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for compensation under the Workmen’s compensation Act (Section 12, article III, Plan No. 20-A; sections 32, 36, 39 and 42, Executive Order No. 218, Series of 1956)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE IN CONTROVERTED AND UNCONTROVERTED CLAIMS. — Controverted claims shall be heard and decided only by a regularly appointed hearing officer or any other employee duly designated by the Regional Administrator to act as hearing officer. Uncontroverted claims not requiring the presentation by the claimant of further evidence shall be adjudicated by the Regional Administrator.

3. ID.; PERIOD WITHIN WHICH EMPLOYER MAY CONTROVERT CLAIM; EFFECT OF FAILURE; REMEDY. — An employer should controvert an employee’s claim for compensation within 14 days from the date of the accident or illness of the employee or within 10 days after he or his representative first acquired knowledge of the said accident or sickness. Failure to do so within the period provided constitutes a waiver of the employer’s right to controvert the claim. An employer may reinstate his right to controvert the claim by filing a petition under oath specifying the reasons for his failure to do so.

4. ID; DEATH REASONABLY INFERRED FROM DISAPPEARANCE IN THE OPEN SEA OF EMPLOYEE ON BOARD EMPLOYER’S VESSEL DURING SEA VOYAGE; WIDOW AND MINOR CHILD ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. — The disappearance of an employee while on board an employer’s vessel in the open sea during a voyage and the failure to locate him dead or alive give rise to a reasonable inference that he accidentally fell into the sea and was drowned. Death having arisen out of and in the course of employment, the employee’s widow and minor child are entitled to compensation.

5. PRESUMPTIONS OF DEATH PROVIDED FOR IN THE CIVIL CODE; PRESUMPTIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS UNDER WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT. — The presumption of death under article 391 of the Civil Code may be invoked in proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a missing person but not under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Appeal by certiorari under the provisions of sections 46 and 49, Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812, Commonwealth Act No. 210 and Republic Acts Nos. 772 and 889.

Cristeta Villanueva, respondent, wife of Dominador Maramot, filed a notice of death and claim for compensation, dated 24 October 1956, against Caltex (Philippines) Inc., Petitioner, under the provisions of section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, in the Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor (Annex A-1). On 29 October 1956 the hearing officer wrote to the manager of the petitioner in Bauan, Batangas, enclosing WCC Forms Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 for his accomplishment in connection with the alleged accident that befell its employee, Dominador Maramot, and return to the sender, and requesting him to appear within five days from receipt thereof and explain why he should not be penalized under the provisions of section 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended for failure to notify the proper authorities of the accident (Annex A). On 6 November 1956 the petitioner transmitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission WCC Form No. 3 duly accomplished (Annexes B & B-1). On 6 May 1958 the administrator of the Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor, entered an award in favor of the respondent claimant holding that her claim not having been controverted by the petitioner and it appearing that "Dominador Maramot sustained personal injury from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment as Messboy on MV Caltex Mindanao of the respondent (petitioner), resulting in his death," "death benefits should therefore, be extended to the claimants, Cristeta Villanueva and her minor child who were wholly dependent upon the deceased for support," and ordering the petitioner to pay to her, through the regional office, the sum of P4,000 as compensation and to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the sum of P41 as fee, pursuant to the provisions of section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended (Annex C).

On 15 May 1958 the petitioner wrote to the regional administrator stating that respondent’s claim is not unconverted but controverted by it; that its failure to file a notice of controversion with the regional office within 14 days from date of the accident or within 10 days after it first acquired knowledge thereof was due to the fact that as the alleged employee was found missing in the open sea on board its vessel, it had to wait for the return of the vessel to its homeport and the result of the marine inquiry to be conducted by the proper authorities; that upon receipt of the letter of the hearing officer the petitioner explained the delay in controverting the respondent’s claim; and that the case being a controverted one, the regional administrator had no authority to hear and determine it, and requesting that the case be referred to the proper officer for hearing (Annex D). On 7 August 1958 the petitioner again wrote to the regional administrator enclosing a copy of its letter dated 15 May 1958 and stating that "a person missing under the circumstances as those of Dominador Maramot may not legally be considered as dead until after the lapse of the period fixed by law on presumptions of death, and consequently claimant cannot for the present be considered as a widow entitled to compensation under the law." (Annex D-1.) .

On 30 October 1958 the regional administrator denied the petitioner’s request for reconsideration and forwarded the record of the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review (Annex E).

On 18 February 1959 the Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered a decision holding that the respondent claimant’s husband disappeared on board the MV "Caltex Mindanao" in the open sea while employed by the petitioner; that as believed by Captain Gavino Colocado of the Philippine Constabulary stationed in Batangas, Batangas, who made a thorough investigation of the incident, the employee accidentally had fallen into the sea and was drowned; and that the petitioner’s statement in its report submitted to the respondent Commission that the employee was "lost at sea and presumed dead as of October 10, 1956" (Annex B-1) "is an admission against interest;" and that the respondent claimant being the widow of the employee is entitled to death compensation, and affirming the decision of the regional administrator. In addition, the petitioner was ordered to pay to the respondent Commission the sum of P5 as fee for the review of the decision of the regional administrator, pursuant to section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended (Annex F). The petitioner filed a "motion for reconsideration and for a hearing en banc" dated 28 February 1959 (Annex G) and memorandum in support of its motion dated 16 April 1959 (Annex G-1). On 26 May 1959 the respondent Commission en banc denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex H), copy of the resolution having been received by the petitioner on 6 July 1959. On 10 July 1959 the petitioner filed a notice of appeal from its decision en banc in the respondent Commission (Annex I). On 16 July 1959 the petitioner filed this petition for certiorari to review the decision of the respondent Commission.

There is no dispute that Dominador Maramot was employed by the petitioner as messboy on board its vessel MV "Caltex Mindanao" with an average weekly salary of P40.43 including allowance for board and lodging; that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 9 October 1956 the said vessel left Bauan, Batangas, for Legaspi City; that when the vessel left for its destination, the said employee was on board by reason of his employment by the petitioner; that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 October 1956, while the vessel was in the open sea near Ticao Pass off the coast of Samar, he was found missing; that the Captain of the vessel ordered its route retraced and the surrounding waters at 12