CASE TITLE: ABELARDO BAUTISTA and ROBERTO TAN TING vs.

FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., G.R. No. L-26002, October 31, 1969

FACTS:

In a traffic collision, petitioner Roberto Ting’s truck was being driven

by Abelardo Bautista, which tragically led to the passing of Quintin

Delgado, the assistant of the delivery truck. As the employer, Borromeo

provided the widow with ₱4, 444 as compensation and funeral expenses.

Borromeo then initiated legal action in July of the following year to recover

the damages paid to the widow, after it was determined that the accident

resulted from the petitioner’s negligence.

On July 23, 1965, both the petitioners and their lawyers were absent

from the hearing. Consequently, Borromeo was allowed to present its

evidence in a closed session. The municipal court ruled in favor of

Borromeo and against the petitioners, awarding ₱4, 444 for the principal

amount and ₱500 for legal costs.

On August 6, the petitioner received a copy of the Municipal Court’s

decision, and on August 13, they attempted to have the ruling overturned,

but their motion was rejected the following day. The denial of their request

was communicated on August 16, 1965, with a copy sent to the petitioner’s

attorney. However, the attorney claimed not to have received the mail.

On September 2, 1965, they were informed that their request had

been denied, prompting them to file an appeal notice on the same day.

However, they submitted their cash appeal bond and paid the appellate

docket fee late, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The petitioners took

no action until October 26, 1965, when they finally filed a petition for relief

from judgment with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, citing their absence

at the hearing as excusable and asserting that they had a substantial

defense.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Borromeo is eligible for reimbursement from

Bautista.

RULINGS:

1. According to Section 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in the

event that an employee suffers an injury for which compensation is

due under this act from any person other than their employer, it shall

be optional for the injured employee to either claim compensation

from their employer under this act or sue the other person for

damages. In accordance with this act, the employer who pays such

compensation or is found liable to pay it shall succeed the injured

employee in the right to recover from such person what they paid.

When compensation is claimed and awarded, and the employer pays

it, the employer becomes subrogated to and acquires, by operation of

law, the worker’s right against the tortfeasor.

Therefore, Borromeo, as the employer of a deceased employee, has

acquired the right of Delgado to sue the guilty party, and as such, he

is eligible for reimbursement from Bautista.

SUBMITTED BY: GROUP 1

Remalyn D. Filoteo BSMA 2

Kenth M. Garcia BSA 2

Daniel B. Guadarido BSMA 2

Claire T. Cajes BSA 2

SUBMITTED TO:
Mrs. Hennessy Ramos, CPA