Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > October 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

092 Phil 214:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4466. October 30, 1952.]

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

Cecilio I. Lim and Antonio Castro for Appellant.

Almario & Gamelo for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINT; SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE OF ACTION. — The test on sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint is whether upon such facts a judgment may be rendered against the defendant.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION. — In a suit to collect compensation under Act 3428, known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by Act 3812, par. 5 of the complaint reads: "That on May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, while the deceased Filomeno Managuit was on board the 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." Held: The averment that the deceased Filomeno Managuit was on board the M/S Pilar II as seaman does not mean and convey the idea that he was engaged in the work assigned to him for he might be playing or relaxing, taking into consideration the asserted time the fatal accident took place (11:30 a. m.) and the averred fact that the two-peso bill dropped into the water belonged to him. To enable a court of competent jurisdiction to render a judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings, an averment that the seaman was performing the work assigned to him on board the M/S Pilar II owned, run and operated by the defendant, in addition to the other material averments pleaded in the complaint, is essential and necessary. Lack of such averment in the complaint renders it insufficient to constitute a cause of action.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a suit to collect compensation under Act No. 3428, known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 3812. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts pleaded therein do not constitute a cause of action. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the facts set out therein are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this appeal.

The only question is whether paragraph 5 of the complaint which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, while the deceased Filomeno Managuit was on board the 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;

is sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The test on sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint is whether upon such facts a judgment may be rendered against the defendant. To entitle the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased seaman who was wholly dependent upon him, to a compensation award, it is at least essential to aver that the seaman was engaged in the work assigned to him on board the M/S "Pilar II" owned, run and operated by the defendant and while at such work he dropped the two-peso bill belonging to him and to retrieve it he leaped into the sea and was drowned. The averment that he was on board the M/S "Pilar II" as seaman does not mean and convey the idea that he was engaged in the work assigned to him for he might be playing or relaxing, taking into consideration the asserted time the fatal accident took place, to wit: 11:30 a.m. and the averred fact that the two-peso bill dropped into the water belonged to him. It is of common knowledge that steamers are washed and cleaned early in the morning. At 11:30 in the morning, the seamen or the crew, if working, must be doing other kinds of labor. The dropping or blowing of the bill into the water implies the idea that the seaman was not at work but must have been playing with it. And the determination to retrieve it suggests also the thought that the steamer was not running but was docked or anchored. So to enable a court of competent jurisdiction to render a judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings, an averment that the seaman was performing the work assigned to him on board the M/S "Pilar II" owned, run and operated by the defendant, in addition to the other material averments pleaded in the complaint, is essential and necessary. Lack of such averment in the complaint renders it insufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The order appealed from dismissing the complaint is affirmed, 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.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, 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





October-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4364 October 7, 1952 - FELIPE B. PAGKANLUÑGAN v. HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, ET AL.

    092 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3645 October 8, 1952 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA, ET AL. v. RURAL PROGRESS ADM.

    092 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-4725 October 15, 1952 - IN RE: YU LO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-3784 October 17, 1952 - ERNEST BERG v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    092 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-4665 October 17, 1952 - ROBUSTIANO CARAGAO, ET AL. v. HON. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-4549 October 22, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CAPISTRANO

    092 Phil 125

  • Adm. Case No. 126 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: ATTY. TRANQUILINO ROVERO

    092 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4397 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: DELFIN LIMTAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-4614 October 24, 1952 - JUAN DELIVA v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-5138 October 24, 1952 - GERONIMO P. VIBAL v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-5424 October 24, 1952 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3751 October 25, 1952 - VISAYAN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MARIANO R. FLORES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-4032 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: CHUA PIENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-4603 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: MANUEL SINGSON v. EMILIA FLORENTINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-4992 October 27, 1952 - ALFREDO MIRANDA v. DAVID GUANZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-5221 October 27, 1952 - BENITO R. FERRER v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3970 October 29, 1952 - GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., ET AL. v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-4441 October 29, 1952 - ROSA BRACAMONTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-4625 October 29, 1952 - EUGENIO EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA SORIANO

    092 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4835 October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES GARCIA

    092 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5188 October 29, 1952 - ALICIA S. GONZALES v. ASIA LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    092 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-5187 October 29, 1952 - MORA O. SANNA v. MORA O. AJIRIA

    092 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-5298 October 29, 1952 - PNB v. PEDRO C. RELATIVO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5628 October 29, 1952 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EL TRIBUNAL INDUSTRIAL

    092 Phil 208

  • C.A. No. 6119-R October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ISAAC

    092 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    092 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-4630 October 30, 1952 - NICOMEDES SULLER v. PRIMITIVO S. PEREZ

    092 Phil 216