ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10947 March 18, 1958 - JOSE MAYOR v. MACARIO MILLAN

    103 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13001 March 18, 1958 - ALFREDO ABCEDE v. DOMINGO IMPERIAL

    103 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-10694 March 20, 1958 - MULLER & PHIPPS (MANILA) v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    103 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-10911 March 21, 1958 - MANILA BLUE PRINTING CO. v. TEACHERS COLLEGE

    103 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-10579 March 22, 1958 - ELIZABETH CONSTANTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-10625 March 22, 1958 - RIZAL MANILA TRANSIT v. CRESENTE VICTORINO

    103 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-9433 March 24, 1958 - MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.) v. MILES TIMBER AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

    103 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-10841 March 24, 1958 - STONEHILL STEEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    103 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-10894 March 24, 1958 - PACIFIC TOBACCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-10137 March 25, 1958 - ELOISA C. AGUILAR v. SERAFIN R. GAMBOA

    103 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-10578 March 25, 1958 - FELIPE ATAYDE v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

    103 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-11721 March 26, 1958 - INOCENCIA ESPINOSA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO

    103 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5707 March 27, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO VERSOLA

    103 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-10929 March 27, 1958 - RAMONA ESCOTO DE MIRANDA v. PASTOR P. REYES

    103 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-8831 March 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FELICISIMO ARROZAL

    103 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-9069 March 28, 1958 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9979 March 28, 1958 - IN RE: MARIA EBREO, ET AL. v. ASUNCION EBREO DE BORROMEO

    103 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-11232 March 28, 1958 - INTERNATIONAL v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 226

  • G.R. Nos. L-9556 & L-12630 March 29, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-10651 March 29, 1958 - LUIS BUENAVENTURA v. DAMASO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-10676 March 29, 1958 - FELICIANO ABAD vs.GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-11086 March 29, 1958 - PILAR ATILANO v. CHUA CHING BENG

    103 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-11229 March 29, 1958 - MANUEL DIAZ v. CARMEN GORRICHO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-11295 March 29, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-11324 March 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU BAO

    103 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. L-10364 & L-10376 March 31, 1958 - RUFINO T. SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-10969 March 31, 1958 - DALMACIO DE LOS ANGELES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 295

  • G.R. Nos. L-11487-88 March 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO HUFANA

    103 Phil 304

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-9069   March 28, 1958 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL. <br /><br />103 Phil 219

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9069. March 28, 1958.]

    VICENTE UY CHAO, Petitioner, v. MANUEL AGUILAR and ERNESTO RAMOS, Respondents.

    Pedro G. Uy for Petitioner.

    Alfredo R. Gomez for respondent Ernesto Ramos.

    Paredes, San Diego & Paredes for respondent Manuel Aguilar.


    SYLLABUS


    1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; PERSON WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS PURELY CASUAL AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF EMPLOYER. — Section 39 (b) of Act No. 3428, as amended, otherwise known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not include an employment for labor that is purely casual and is not for the purpose of the employer’s occupation or business. In the case at bar the employment of respondent A to help in the repair or replacement of the eave of a commercial store owned by petitioner UC was purely casual because such work was needed only when the said structure was damaged or broken. When it would be broken and repaired nobody could foresee. Work on the eave could not be made at fixed intervals. The employment of a carpenter and a tinsmith for its repair or replacement was therefore only occasional, sporadic and for a short time.

    2. ID.; ID.; — The repair of dismantling of the eave was not for the purpose of the petitioner’s occupation or business. The petitioner was a glassware dealer. He bought and sold glassware. It is difficult to see the connection of the repair or dismantling with the buying and selling of glassware. Repair is restoration to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation, injury or partial destruction, or of fixing broken or damaged parts of a structural whole. On the other hand, selling glassware is transferring the ownership over commodities or goods from the seller to the buyer for a certain valuable consideration.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    This is an appeal under section 46, Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812, Commonwealth Act No. 210 and Republic Act No. 772, from a decision rendered by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on 18 March 1955, which affirmed a referee’s amended decision of 7 December 1954, awarding respondent Manuel Aguilar

    1. . . . the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE and 14/100 PESOS (P533.14) by way of compensation still due and unpaid;

    2. . . . the additional sum of FIFTEEN PESOS (P15.00) as reimbursement for medical expenses incurred; and

    3. . . .the sum of SEVEN PESOS (P7.00) as administrative costs.

    to be paid by La Boda de Plata and absolved respondent Ernesto Ramos from any liability (W.C.C. Case No. 26372).

    It appears that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 24 November 1953, respondent Aguilar suffered physical injury as a result of the sudden fall of the whole eave of a glassware store known as La Boda de Plata and owned by the petitioner Uy Chao, while he (respondent Aguilar) together with two other laborers was on top of said eave removing the galvanized iron sheets covering the frame of the eave. In the afternoon of the same day respondent Ramos engaged respondent Aguilar for the said work.

    In this appeal petitioner Uy Chao raises two questions of law: (1) respondent Ramos was the statutory employer for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and not he, the petitioner, and (2) the employment of respondent Aguilar to repair or replace the eave of the glassware store was casual and not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the petitioner.

    The petitioner contends that respondent Ramos was an independent contractor and the statutory employer of the injured laborer, respondent Aguilar; that as such respondent Ramos should be held liable for the injuries sustained by the laborer; and that he (the petitioner) should be exempted from any liability.

    There is, however, no need of passing upon the point whether respondent Ramos was an independent contractor, because even if the services of respondent Aguilar were engaged by petitioner Uy Chao directly or through an agent or contractor, still respondent Aguilar, the injured laborer, is not entitled to compensation for the simple reason that his employment was purely casual and was not for the purposes of the petitioner’s business or occupation.

    Section 39 (b) of Act No. 3428 as amended, known otherwise as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, provides that —

    (b) ‘Laborer’ is used as a synonym of ‘Employee’ and means every person who has entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. It does not include a person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of occupation or business of the employer. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

    Clearly, the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not include an employment for labor that is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the employer’s occupation or business. The employment of respondent Aguilar to help in the repair or replacement of the eave of a commercial store owned by petitioner Uy Chao was purely casual, because such work would occur only when the said structure should be damaged or broken. When it would be broken and repaired, nobody could foresee. It may safely be stated that the work on the eave would not be made at fixed intervals. The employment of a carpenter and a tinsmith for its repair or replacement was therefore only occasional, sporadic and for a short time.

    It is clear that the repair or dismantlement of the eave was not for the purpose of the petitioner’s occupation or business. The petitioner was a glassware dealer. He bought and sold glassware. It is difficult to see the connection of the repair or dismantlement with the buying and selling of glassware. Repair is restoration to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation, injury or partial destruction. 1 It is essentially a process of reconstruction, or of fixing broken or damaged parts of a structural whole. On the other hand, selling glassware is transferring the ownership over commodities or goods from the seller to the buyer for a certain valuable consideration.

    Respondents contend that the repair of the eave was for the purposes of the petitioner’s occupation or business of selling glassware. They argue that the said structure "being part of petitioner’s store, it stands to reason that any repair made on it must be a repair made on petitioner’s store and the employment for such repair must, therefore, be an employment for petitioner’s business — that of maintaining a store," and that "whatever was or is sold in that store, be it glassware or any other commodity, is merely an incident to the petitioner’s business of maintaining the store." In Philippine Manufacturing Company v. Santos Vda. de Geronimo Et. Al., 96 Phil., 276, this Court ruled that the painting of an elevated water tank belonging to the Philippine Manufacturing Company was not for the purposes of the Company’s business or occupation of manufacturing soap, vegetable lard, cooking oil and margarine and in De los Santos v. Javier, 58 Phil., 82, it was held by this Court that the construction of a corral is not for the purposes of the business or occupation of buying and selling hogs and curing ham, because the defendant who engages in buying and selling hogs and curing ham "is not a building contractor, and it was not his business to construct buildings."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The rule in Caro v. Rilloraza Et. Al., (102 Phil., 61), where this Court by a vote of 6 to 4 held that the laborer who while constructing a window railing of a building "fell to the ground and broke his leg, as the wooden platform on which he and another carpenter were working collapsed," was entitled to receive compensation from the owner of the building, is not applicable to the present case, because there the building was for lease for income purposes and the "repair, maintenance and painting thereof, with a view to attracting or keeping tenants and of inducing them to pay a good or increased rental is most certainly, part of said business." Here, the petitioner was engaged not in house-letting business but in buying and selling glassware.

    The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner appealed from is reversed, and the petitioner Uy Chao absolved from liability, without pronouncement as to costs.

    Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Footnote

    1. Webster’s New International Dictionary, p. 2111.

    G.R. No. L-9069   March 28, 1958 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL. <br /><br />103 Phil 219




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED