Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

101 Phil 66:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9807. April 17, 1957.]

PAN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and LEONORA FRIAS, Respondents.

Claro M. Recto for Petitioner.

Cesareo Perez and Anacleto Ea for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAW; EXEMPTION OF LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION REFERS ONLY TO SMALL INDUSTRIES. — The exemption of liability to pay compensation based on the provisions of Section 42 of the Compensation Act refers only to small industries or a trade or occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain. It does not refer to large or big industries such as mining and similar large enterprises wherein big capital investment is needed to make the enterprise productive.

2. ID.; ID.; PHRASE "YEAR PRECEDING THE ACCIDENT" CONSTRUED. — Appellant claims to be in the nature of a small industry, as contemplated in the aforementioned section, for it did not do any business during the occupation, and, consequently, it had no income whatsoever in 1944, the year preceding the accident. The phrase "during the year preceding the one in which the accident occurred" should be interpreted as "during the business year preceding etc.," which in this case is the year 1941, the last year of business activity of the respondent corporation before its closure due to war. Otherwise all employers, no matter how big their capital and income may be, would be exempt, during their first year of operation, from any and all liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Such could not have been the intent of the framers of said legislation.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is an appeal, taken by the Pan Philippines Corporation, from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordering said appellant to pay to Leonora Frias, as the widow of Pascual Castillo, the sum of P983.84, by way of compensation for the latter’s death, and the costs of the proceedings.

Pascual Castillo, was a carpenter of the Pan Philippines Corporation. On December 25, 1945, he, together with Victor Lozado and Daniel Buenafrancisca, who were, also, employees of the corporation, died by drowning, as a boat thereof capsized off the coast of the Caramoan Peninsula, while sailing from Sabang, San Jose, Camarines Sur, with a cargo of UNRRA goods for the mining concession of said appellant in the Island of Lahuy, Municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur. This occurrence was reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Division of the Bureau of Labor, on or about August 6, 1947, when Jovita Sacil filed her claim for compensation as widow of the aforementioned Daniel Buenafrancisca. In the course of the proceedings relative to this claim of Jovita Sacil, said office learned about the death of, among others, Pascual Castillo, in view of which, on September 25, 1947, appellant was required to submit the data pertinent thereto. Subsequently, or on February 11, 1949, Leonora Frias filed with said office her claim for compensation as widow of Pascual Castillo. Acting thereon, as referee — pursuant to Section 31 of Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812 — on September 9, 1950, the Bureau of Labor found that appellant should pay Leonora Frias, as widow of the deceased Pascual Castillo, the sum of P983.84 by way of compensation for his death. Thereafter, or on June 20, 1952, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was created by Republic Act No. 772. In the exercise of its authority under this Act, the Commission took cognizance of the claim of Leonora Frias, and on February 3, 1955, a referee thereof rendered the decision above mentioned, which, upon appellant’s petition for review, was affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Hence, this appeal by said corporation.

Appellant maintains that, pursuant to Section 43, paragraph (2), of Act 190, the claim of Leonora Frias prescribed after six (6) years from the accrual of her cause of action on December 25, 1945 and is barred, therefore, by the statute of limitations, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission having assumed jurisdiction over this case more than six (6) years after said date, or on June 20, 1952. This pretense was rejected in the decision appealed from, upon the ground that said period of prescription was extended by Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code to ten (10) years from the accrual of the cause of action, and that said period did not expire, in the case at bar, until December 25, 1955, or after the Commission had taken cognizance of this case, and rendered said decision. Appellant assails this conclusion upon the ground that, pursuant to Article 2252 of the Civil Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no retroactive effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

and that the application of said Article 1144 to the claim of Leonora Frias would impair vested rights of said appellant. The latter had, however, no such vested right when the Civil Code of the Philippines became effective in 1950, inasmuch as the period of six (6) years provided in Act No. 190 did not expire until December 25, 1951. Accordingly, the defense of prescription of action is untenable.

It is next urged, that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain this case, for Section 42 of Act 3428 (as amended by Act 3812) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Law applicable to small industries. — All claims for accidents occurring in a trade, occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain, the gross income of which during the year next preceding the one in which the accident occurred was less than seventy thousand pesos, shall be governed by the provisions of Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and seventy-four and its amendment."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant claims to be in the nature of a small industry, as contemplated in this provision, for it did not do any business during the occupation, and, consequently, it had no income whatsoever in 1944, the year preceding the death of Pascual Castillo. In this connection, the decision appealed from has the following to say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The testimony of the respondent, thru its representative Mr. Nicasio Martin, discloses that the respondent company is a Philippine Mining Corporation; that it had a capital stock before the war of more than 1/2 million pesos; that its mining properties are mainly located in the Bicol region; that the operation of their mining activities was closed during the war; that after liberation, it received more than 1/2 million pesos as payment for war damages. The exemption of liability to pay compensation as sought by the representation of the respondent based on the provisions of section 42 of the Compensation Act is not justified because this provision of law refers to small industries, and as the law so recites, it only refers to a trade or occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain. It does not refer to large or big industries such as mining and similar large enterprises wherein big capital investment is needed to make the enterprise productive.

"Organized mining enterprises are not small industries. It is also our view that the phrase ‘during the year preceding the one in which the accident occurred was less than P20,000’ in Section 42 of the Act, should be interpreted as ‘during the business year preceding etc.’ which in this case is the year 1941, the last year of business activity of the respondent corporation before its closure due to war. How could there have been a gross income of less than P20,000 if there was no business transacted the preceding year due to closure of the plant? When the law speaks of gross income, it presupposes business activity."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are fully in agreement with this view, not only for the reasons therein set forth, but, also, because, otherwise, all employers, no matter how big their capital and income may be, would be exempt, during their first year of operation, from any and all liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Neither its spirit, nor its language, justifies, however, the belief that such could possibly have been the intent of the framers of said legislation.

Appellant insists that the death of Pascual Castillo did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, for it took place while he was transporting UNRRA goods, which is foreign to his employment as appellant’s carpenter. This pretense was correctly found untenable in the decision appealed from. As stated therein,

". . . It was testified to by the representative of the respondent that the mining company had recalled its pre-war employees to do rehabilitation work in their plant, and it is undeniable that part of the rehabilitation work of the respondent was to rehabilitate its employees by providing them with clothing due to the loss or destruction of their personal belongings during the war. The fact that the workers or employees of the respondent in 1945 were assigned to do jobs other than actual mining work did not mean that no employer- employee relation existed between the laborers and the respondent corporation, and if during their work a laborer is injured, the respondent must pay compensation under the Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is lastly argued that the alleged marriage of Leonora Frias to Pascual Castillo has not been duly established, the proof thereon being purely hearsay. The evidence on record consists of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. An affidavit of Alejandro Frias and Ana Plopinio (Exhibit A- 4), stating that they were witnesses to the wedding of Pascual Castillo and Leonora Frias on June 25, 1941, in the Parochial Church of the barrio of San Miguel, Municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, where said affiants reside;

2. An affidavit of Pedro Frias (Exhibit A-5), another resident of the same barrio, to the effect that he knew personally said spouses; that they were married in the place and on the date above stated; that, thereafter, they lived as husband and wife, in the Island of Lahuy, Caramoan, Camarines Sur; and that they had a baby boy, born on March 10, 1943, who died ten (10) days later, without the benefit of baptism;

3. The verified claim of Leonora Frias (Exhibit A), stating, among other things, that she is the wife of Pascual Castillo; and

4. The statement, Exhibit A-3, of the parish priest of San Miguel, Caramoan, Camarines Sur, certifying that the marriage certificate of Pascual Castillo and Leonora Frias cannot be found among the records of his parish owing to the partial destruction of said records during the Japanese occupation.

These documents were part of the report of the investigator appointed by the Commission and were properly considered in evidence, pursuant to Section 49 of Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act No. 772. The only qualification imposed therein is that "any party in interest shall have an opportunity to examine and rebut" said evidence "by further evidence", which opportunity appellant has had. There is, accordingly, no merit in its aforesaid pretense.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452