This  is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission ordering the petitioner, Martha Lumber Mill, Inc., to  pay to the respondents Romana V. Lagradante and her minor children Pedro,  Jr., Palencia and Erlinda Lagradante, as compensation for the death  of Felicito Lagradante, the sum of P2,535.52, plus burial expenses  amounting to not more than  P100,  and to the Commission the sum of P26.

Felicito Lagradante was murdered on the night of March 7, 1951.  The  petitioner contends that the deceased was an employee of the Bureau of Forestry, duly appointed by the Department  of Agriculture and Natural  Resources. It appears, however,  that  the  appointment was in virtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 11 dated September 11, 1934, which provides as follows: 

"34 (s) Within thirty  (30)  days  from the date of the  issuance of a license, and after the terms and conditions of said license had been  duly accepted in their  entirety  by the licensee concerned, at least one  concession guard, if so required in  the  license, shall be employed  by said licensee.  The name and address of  the concession  guard so employed shall be reported  to the  local forest office  under  whose  jurisdiction the license  area falls. The  concession guard, whose salary will be paid him direct by the licensee, shall  from time  to time, report to the herein  mentioned forest officer for instruction  regarding his duties  and obligations to patrol and cooperate with the government in the protection of the area of  the licensee employing him.  (New  subsection added as per section 19, Administrative  Order No. 11-7.)"

The petitioner was accordingly  required to employ at least one concession guard, whose salary was payable by it;  and there is here no pretense that the latter had any such guard other than the deceased Felicito Lagradante. Indeed, in  its letter addressed to the Secretary of Labor, dated February 19, 1952, it admitted that the deceased was employed as its concession guard.  That the appointment was actually made by the  Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources did not affect the status  of the deceased as an  employee of the petitioner, as  the intervention of the Government was a  formality undoubtedly designed to insure faithful performance  of his  duties "to patrol and cooperate with the Government in the protection of the area of the licensee employing him."

We cannot accept petitioner's argument that the death of  Felicito Lagradante  did  not arise out of and  in the course of his  employment,  having been murdered outside of office hours.  It appears that the deceased was required to live and sleep in the quarters provided by the petitioner, and obviously by reason of the nature of his duties  as a concession  guard, with  the result that,  although he had to  observe  certain working  hours,  he  nevertheless  was compelled to stay in his quarters, thereby in effect making himself available, regardless of time, for  the  protection of the rights and interest of the petitioner in its concession.

The petitioner observes that Felicito Lagradante's killers were finally convicted in G. R. No. L-5512 of this Court and his heirs were awarded  indemnity,,  and cites  the decision in Pascasio vs. Guido, 38 Off. Gaz., 3156, to the effect that the heirs of  the  deceased hacienda, manager, murdered by his predecessor who had been dismissed, were not entitled to the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act.  In the case cited, however, it was held that the deceased manager was not an industrial employee in the sense contemplated by the law, and therefore it is not controlling. Upon the other hand, in Nava vs.  Ynchausti Steamship Co., 57 Phil., 751, it was ruled that, although the death of the employee therein involved resulted from a deliberate act of the killer and the latter was convicted of homicide,  the said employee died from an accident, and the obligation of the employer to compensate was unaffected by the liability of the killer to indemnify the heirs of the  deceased which "is wholly distinct from the  obligation imposed by  the Workmen's  Compensation  Act and the latter, is in  no sense subsidiary  to the former."  While  in G.  R.  No. L-5512  it was found that the motive  for the  killing  of Felicito Lagradante was robbery, we cannot overlook  the admission of the petitioner, contained in its  letter dated March 24, 1951, and addressed to  Ramon  Lagradante, father of the  deceased Felicito Lagradante,  that the mastermind stated in his confession that he bore a grudge against Felicito in view of Felicito's having replaced him in his former job,  adding that it was Felicito who  was responsible for his ousting."   .

The petitioner also intimates that the respondents who have been awarded  compensation by the Workman's Compensation Commission did not file their  claim within three months after the death of Felicito Lagradante, in violation of section 24 of Act No. 8428.   In answer,  it is sufficient  to point out, as the Commission  did, that after the receipt  of the petitioner's  letter of March 24, 1951, respondent  Romana  Lagradante, as early as  April  11, 1951, wrote to the  Secretary  of Labor appealing  for help in  securing any  gratuity or benefit for the death of her husband; and said respondent was prompted to do so, apparently misled by petitioner's letter stating that  the deceased assumed the duties of a concession guard duly appointed by the  Director of the  Bureau  of  Forestry thereby  being  caused to believe that  her husband  was an employee of the Bureau of  Forestry and not by  the petitioner.  Such request for help from  the  Secretary  of Labor on April 11, 1951, may fairly be held as a substantial compliance with the law or an excuse for the delay in the filing of the formal claim for compensation.  Moreover,  it  appears that the petitioner did not submit the required employer's report of accident or sickness, which would have served as petitioner's answer in the compensation proceedings; and such  failure may be deemed  as a waiver of the defense that the claim for compensation was not filed within the statutory period.

Apart from what has been said, petitioner's  failure  to file with  the Workmen's Compensation  Commission any notice of appeal as required by section  1  of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court which also governs appeals from decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, is necessarily fatal.  (Resolution of February 22,1954,  G. R. No. L-7355, Manila  Electric Company vs.  Maximo Cruz.)

Wherefore, the appealed decision is  affirmed with costs against the  petitioner.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.