Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

095 Phil 33:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6870. May 24, 1954.]

ELENA AMEDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Cesareo Perez and Meliton C. Parducho for Appellant.

M. Almario and Jose T. Lajom for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO HOLD EMPLOYER LIABLE. — The employer shall be liable to compensate his employee for a personal injury sustained by him from an accident if the accident (1) arises out of the employment; (2) happens in the course of the employment; and (3) is not caused by the notorious negligence" of the employee.

2. ID.; ID.; CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR BEFORE EMPLOYEE CAN RECOVER. — Where the death of an employee was due to an accident which took place" in the course of" but did not "arise out of" his employment, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

3. ID.; ID.; "NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE ILLUSTRATED. — "Notorious negligence" has been held to be tantamount to "gross negligence", which, in turn, has been defined as "want of even slight care and diligence." Jumping into the sea, one mile and a half from the seashore, to recover a fallen 2-peso bill, is an open and reckless disregard of one’s safety and the resulting death is undoubtedly caused by notorious negligence.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This case was instituted on October 18, 1950. In her original complaint, plaintiff Elena Amedo sought to collect from defendant Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc., the sum of P2,038.40 as compensation for the death of her son, Filomeno Managuit, who worked for the defendant as a seaman of the M/S Pilar II. The main allegation of said original complaint was:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, while the deceased Filomeno Managuit was on board M/S ’Pilar II’ as such seaman, he jumped into the water to retrieve a 2-peso bill belonging to him, and as a consequence of which, he was drowned."cralaw virtua1aw library

On November 1, 1950, defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that said allegation does not show that the death of plaintiff’s son was due to an "accident arising out of and in the course of employment," and that, accordingly, the complaint does not state a cause of action. This motion was granted and the complaint dismissed, accordingly, by an order dated December 11, 1950. A motion for the reconsideration of this order having been denied, plaintiff appealed to this Court, which, on October 30, 1952, rendered a decision affirming the order appealed from, but "without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased seaman, to file an amended complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice by the clerk of the trial court that the record of this case had been remanded to and received by the trial court, without costs." Hence, on December 22, 1952, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, paragraph 4 of which alleges:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on May 27, 1949, at or about 11:30 o’clock in the morning while the said Filomeno Managuit was in the course of his employment, performing his duties as such ordinary seaman on defendant’s M/S ’Pilar II’, which was anchored then about 1 1/2 miles from the seashore of Arceli Dumarang, Palawan, his two-peso bill was blown by the breeze into the sea and in his effort to retrieve the same from the waters he was drowned."cralaw virtua1aw library

A motion to dismiss this amended complaint upon the ground of failure to state a cause of action was granted and the case, consequently, dismissed without costs. A reconsideration of this action having been denied, the case is once again before us on appeal.

Plaintiff’s claim is admittedly predicated upon Act No. 3428, otherwise known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The same was amended, first, by Act No. 3812, then, by Commonwealth Act No. 210 and, lastly, by Republic Act 772. The latter, however, took effect on June 20, 1952 or after the accident upon which plaintiff bases her cause of action. Hence, in the consideration of this case, we shall disregard the provisions of said Republic Act No. 772. Sections 2 and 4 of Act No. 2428, prior to its latest amendment, read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Grounds for compensation. — When any employee receives a personal injury from any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by such employment, or the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in the sums and to the persons hereinafter specified.."

"SEC. 4. Injuries not covered. — Compensation shall not be allowed for injuries caused (1) by the voluntary intent of the employee to inflict such injury upon himself or another person; (2) by drunkenness on the part of the laborer who had the accident; (3) by notorious negligence of the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to these provisions — in so far as pertinent to the case at bar — three conditions are essential to hold an employer liable to compensate his employee for a personal injury sustained by him from an accident, namely: (1) the accident must arise out of the employment; (2) it must happen in the course of the employment; and (3) it must not be caused by the "notorious negligence" of the employee.

Admittedly, the death of Filomeno Managuit was due to an accident. The point in issue is whether such accident occurred under the three (3) conditions aforementioned. Referring to the first two requirements, we said, in Afable Et. Al. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co. (58 Phil., 39, 42):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The phrase ’due to and in the pursuance of’ used in section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 to ’arising out of and in the course of’. Discussing this phrase, the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Muller Construction Co. v. Industrial Board (283 Ill., 148; 118 N. E., 1028; 1 W. C. L., 943), said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘The words ’arising out of’ refer to the origin or cause of the accident and are descriptive of its character, while the words ’in the course of’ refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. (Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Sons, 1 B.W.C.C., 197 Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11; 116 N.E. 684.) By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment, but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workmen’s employment or incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded.’"

Adopting a liberal view, it may be conceded that the death of Filomeno took place "in the course of" his employment, in that it happened at the "time" when, and at the "place" where — according to the amended complaint — he was working. However, the accident which produced this tragic result did not "arise out of" his employment. Indeed, the latter was not "the origin or cause of said accident. The blowing of his 2-peso bill may have grown out of, or arisen from, his employment. It was the result of a risk peculiar to his work as a seaman or incidental to such work. But, his death was the consequence of his decision to jump into the water to retrieve said bill. The hazardous nature of this act was not due specially to the nature of his employment. It was a risk to which any person on board the M/S Pilar II, such as a passenger thereof or an ordinary visitor, would have been exposed had he, likewise, jumped into the sea, as Filomeno had.

Irrespective of whether or not the accident in question arose out of, or took place in the course of the employment, was it caused by his "notorious negligence" ? The phrase "notorious negligence" has been held to be tantamount to "gross negligence", which, in turn, has been defined as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Gross negligence is defined to be the want of even slight care and diligence." (Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Aschcraft [1872] 48 Ala., 15.)

"By gross negligence is meant ’such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury to person or property of others.’ . . The negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property." (Wall v. Cameron [1882] 6 Colo., 275; see, also, The Law Governing Labor Disputes in the Philippines by Francisco, 2nd ed., p. 877.)

It cannot be denied that in jumping into the sea, one mile and a half from the seashore of Arceli, Dumarang, Palawan, Filomeno failed to exercise "even slight care and diligence," that he displayed a "reckless disregard of the safety" of his person, that he could not have been but conscious of the probable consequences" of his carelessness and that he was "indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, in the case of Government of the Philippines v. The Manila Electric Co. (40 Off. Gaz., 9th Suppl., 232), an employee of the Bureau of Posts who died by electrocution, as the lines which he was repairing came into contact with those of the Manila Electric, was held to be guilty of gross negligence, he having been previously warned that the service of electric light had been reestablished and that he should, therefore, be careful in handling the wires. The same conclusion was reached in De la Cruz v. Hijos de I. de la Rama & Co. (62 Phil., 653), involving a truck driver who died, because his truck fell into a ditch in consequence of a false manuever he made to avoid collision with another car which unexpectedly appeared on the road, while he was driving on the wrong side of the highway, at a speed of 40 to 50 km. an hour.

To the same effect was the decision in Jahara v. Mindanao Lumber Co. (57 Phil., 853), referring to a laborer who was run over by a car, as he fell therefrom, when he tried to board it while moving backward. Similarly, the death of a carpenter as he slipped from the roof of a building he was repairing was blamed on his gross negligence in Caunan v. Compañia General de Tabacos (56 Phil., 542, 545), he having worn rubber shoes despite the fact that the roof was wet.

The case of Reyes v. The City of Manila (G. R. No. 29112, July 18, 1933) referred to a watchman assigned to a road-roller, who sat on a piece of board one end of which was over a box placed on the hind wheels of the road-roller and the other end over a box of tools on the same roller two meters above the ground. As he tried to drive away the mosquitoes and flying ants which bothered him, the board slipped off the wheel of the roller. So, he fell to the ground and his knee and left pelvis bumped against the cement sidewalk, sustaining physical injuries as a consequence thereof. It was held that he had been grossly negligent in seating on the piece of board which was precariously placed and in making motions for the purpose of driving away the mosquitoes and flying ants. Again in Guilas v. The Province of Pampanga (G. R. No. 37744, July 21, 1933), a laborer on board a truck who stood up as it was approaching a curve and fell over when the vehicle turned the curved, was held guilty of gross negligence.

In none of these cases was the danger as apparent or imminent as when Filomeno Managuit jumped into the sea to recover his 2-peso bill. Hence, there is more reason to hold that his death was caused by his notorious negligence.

His case is easily distinguishable from that of Cuevo v. Barredo (G. R. No. 45669, decided February 24, 1938, the employee involved therein, who appeared to be a good swimmer, having acted in obedience to an order of his foreman, to save or protect a property of the employer. It is, also, distinguishable from accidents occurring while the laborer or employee is answering a call of nature, or throwing away his cigarette (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Parham, 69 Ga. App. 258), or picking up his pipe, which had fallen, or retrieving his shoes from a car into which a fellow worker had thrown it (Donovan v. Bush Terminal Co., 6 N. Y. S. 2nd 860, 255 App Div. 737), these acts not being dangerous per se and the employee being legally justified or supposed to perform either of them in the course of his employment. So, also, if, while Filomeno Managuit was working, his 2-peso bill merely fell from his pocket, and as he picked up the bill from the floor something accidentally fell upon him and injured him, he would surely be entitled to compensation, his act being obviously innocent. In such case, it could be said, in the words of the Lord President in Lauchlan v. Anderson (S. C. 529), that "He had the right to be at the place . . . he was within the time during which he was employed . . . and he was doing a thing which a man while working may reasonably do — a workman of his sort may reasonably smoke, he may reasonably drop his pipe, and he may reasonably pick it up again." (See Ramos v. Poblete Et. Al., 40 Off. Gaz., 3474). Jumping into the sea, however, is entirely different, the danger which it entails being clear, potent and obvious.

In view of the foregoing the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205