Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > January 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13374 January 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO BAUTISTA v. GERARDO MURILLO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13374. January 31, 1962.]

FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. GERARDO MURILLO, Respondent.

Eliseo M. Tenza and Gabriel Trinidad, Jr. for Petitioner.

Mario Braga and Ernesto H. Cruz for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; ITS PROVISION BE GIVEN LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. — The Workmen’s Compensation Act being a social legislation designed to give relief to labor in case of injury, its provision should be given a liberal interpretation in order to fully carry into effect its beneficent provisions. Doubts as to the right of labor to compensation should be resolved in its favor.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Gerardo Murillo filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against Francisco Bautista arising from an injury that he suffered while in the employ of the latter. The claim was controverted on the ground that the construction of the building where the alleged accident took place was being done on the residential building of respondent and as such is not compensable aside from the fact that the claimant cannot be considered as an employee within the meaning of the law.

The pertinent facts as found by the referee who received the evidence are: Francisco Bautista at the time of the accident was engaged in business as a dealer of gravel and sand for building construction. Before said accident the business was conducted on the ground floor of his residential house located at No. 350 Dimasalang St., Manila, the upper floor being used by his family as residence. On March 16, 1955, he decided to have the place where he was conducting his business demolished and a new building erected in its place and meanwhile he had his business temporarily transferred to the house of his brother situated about 10 meters away.

Murillo, the claimant, became acquainted with Bautista when his brother, Jesus Murillo, a servant of Bautista, introduced him to the latter as he was in need of work three months before the construction. The claimant was not a regular employee of Bautista in the construction but he volunteered to help since he was allowed to lodge in Bautista’s residence at the invitation of his brother. Sometime in March, 1955, while part of the stone wall was being demolished and the claimant was performing odd jobs in and around the construction the wall toppled down and caught claimant’s left leg resulting in its fracture. The construction was undertaken personally by Bautista and upon learning of the accident he personally directed that claimant be brought to the North General Hospital for treatment. He was later taken to the National Orthopedic Hospital, Bautista paying the incidental expenses. In consideration of the services rendered by the claimant during the construction he was paid P3.00 a day.

On the strength of the foregoing facts, the referee rendered decision holding that claimant "while not being a regular employee, was impliedly employed as a `casual’ laborer to help in the construction of the building connected with respondent’s business by performing odd jobs in connection with said building construction." Consequently, he ordered respondent to pay claimant the sum of P699.56 by way of disability compensation, and the sum of P7.00 to the Commission as fees pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Respondent filed a petition for review alleging that the decision of the referee was contrary to law and the evidence, and when this petition was denied, he appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Again this plea was denied when the Commission affirmed in toto the decision of the referee. The case is now before us on a petition for review interposed by Respondent.

It is contended that because claimant merely used to perform odd jobs during the construction of the building where he suffered the accident because "he was ashamed to the alleged employer for allowing him to lodge in his residence free" he was not a regular employee, but a mere casual laborer, and as such is not entitled to compensation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. It is true that the referee made the conclusion that claimant "while not being a regular employee, was impliedly employed as a `casual’ laborer to help in the construction of the building connected with the respondent’s business by performing odd jobs in connection with said building construction", but this does not mean that said claimant has not been actually employed, for it appears proven that in consideration of the services he has rendered he was paid by respondent P3.00 a day. He is, therefore, actually an employee of respondent, even if casual, when the accident took place.

The question now to be determined is: being a casual employee can he be considered a laborer within the meaning of the law? Being a casual laborer is he entitled to compensation?

Section 39 (b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘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 the occupation or business of the employer. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would appear that a laborer or employee means every person who has entered the employment or works under the service of another, excluding therefrom one whose employment is purely casual or is not for the purposes of the business of the employer. It thus appears that as a rule one who holds merely a casual employment, like that of claimant, does not come within the purview of the law; it is still necessary that the employment be had for the purposes of the business of the employer. The facts obtaining in this case seem to fit into the scope of this definition for here it was found by the referee that not only was claimant a casual employee but that he actually worked in the construction of the building which was being undertaken in connection with the business in which respondent was then engaged. It should be remembered that the place where the business of respondent was conducted was being demolished and another one constructed in its place, and it was in connection with such construction that the accident happened. It may, therefore, be said that the claim of claimant was for the purposes of the business of his employer.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, being a social legislation designed to give relief to labor in case of injury, its provisions should be given a liberal interpretation in order to fully carry into effect its beneficent provisions. Doubts as to the right of labor to compensation should be resolved in its favor.

"‘In addition to cases holding that workmen’s compensation acts should be given interpretation in favor of the employee, a number of cases hold that the acts should or must be construed fairly reasonably, or liberally, in favor, or for the benefit, of employees or their dependents, all doubts as to the right to compensation being resolved in their favor, and all presumptions indulged being in their favor; and there are statutory provisions for a liberal construction in favor of employees injured.’

"‘The intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the necessity or reason of the act and the meaning of words is to be derived from consideration of the whole act, and double respecting the rights to compensation should be resolved in favor of the employees or his dependents.’" (Francisco v. Consing, 63 Phil., 354)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from as affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its resolution dated December 19, 1957, is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, 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






January-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962 - DOMINADOR R. AYTONA v. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17076 January 29, 1962 - AUGUSTO G. GAMBOA v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17078 January 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FRANCISCO BUENASEDA

  • G.R. No. L-17079 January 29, 1962 - BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11037 January 30, 1962 - EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL. v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17248 January 29, 1962 - BEATRIZ GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12141 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL LASALA

  • G.R. No. L-12487 January 30, 1962 - CASTOR CUSTODIO v. PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14662 January 30, 1962 - GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL. v. CORAZON AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14715 January 30, 1962 - MARCELA JULIAN, ET AL. v. MARTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14913 January 30, 1962 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. ZOILO HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15047 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DIONISIO PALARAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15539 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ADOLFO MAGDANGAL

  • G.R. No. L-15964 January 30, 1962 - EZEQUIEL S. CONSULTA v. NICASlO YATCO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15974 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL SILVA

  • G.R. No. L-16020 January 30, 1962 - VICENTE FRAGANTE v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-16667 January 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16693-4-5 January 30, 1962 - GODOFREDO I. MOSUELA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16796 January 30, 1962 - ALEJANDRO ABAO, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16836 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO SANVICTORES

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16970 January 30, 1962 - ELOY B. BELLO v. VALENTIN A. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-17384 January 30, 1962 - NESTORA RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17398 January 30, 1962 - ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL. v. SANTOS VILLAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17689 January 30, 1962 - JOSE BELEY v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17936 January 30, 1962 - CITY OF LEGASPI v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12396 January 31, 1962 - KER & COMPANY, LTD. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12960 January 31, 1962 - CIRILO VENTURA, ET AL. v. ANASTACIA BAYSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12996 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-13374 January 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO BAUTISTA v. GERARDO MURILLO

  • G.R. No. L-13439 January 31, 1962 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13656 January 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALBERTO D. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. L-13924 January 31, 1962 - JACOBO DIVINO v. RAMONA FABIE DE MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14106 January 31, 1962 - EMILIANA EMPAMANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-14834 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14891 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS

  • G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. Nos. L-15447-48 January 31, 1962 - ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15976 January 31, 1962 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. BENJAMIN V. LIMBAGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-16386 January 31, 1962 - RAMON VELEZ v. GABINO SAAVEDRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16460 January 31, 1962 - ADELA SILPAO v. LOPE PAGLOMOTAN

  • G.R. No. L-16474 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16480 January 31, 1962 - ARTEMIO KATIGBAK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16513 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ ARGUELLES VDA. DE LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16550 January 31, 1962 - ALLEN McCONN v. PAUL HARAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16558 January 31, 1962 - CASIANO MAGISTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962 - SOUTHERN LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16661 January 31, 1962 - CLARA DILUANGCO PALANCA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16662 January 31, 1962 - VET BROS. & CO., INC. v. JOSE S. MOVIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16668 and L-16669 January 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ETC. v. BIENVENIDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-16683 January 31, 1962 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CEBU v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702 January 31, 1962 - LUCIANO ESCOSURA, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16714 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXENCIO MORADO

  • G.R. No. L-16741 January 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA Q. DE ABRAHAM, ET AL. v. PRISCILLA RECTO- KASTEN

  • G.R. No. L-16809 January 31, 1962 - UNION GARMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16872 January 31, 1962 - THEODORE LEWIN v. DEPORTATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16897 January 31, 1962 - GREGORIO M. MATAS v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16926 January 31, 1962 - FELIPE TANCHOCO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17240 January 31, 1962 - CLEMENCIA B. VDA. DE VILLONGCO, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17250 January 31, 1962 - JOSE DE LUNA GONZALES, ET AL. v. GENEROSA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17335 January 31, 1962 - RAUL H. TANPINCO v. ANTONIO T. LOZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17436 January 31, 1962 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17451 January 31, 1962 - DOMINADOR S. ASIS v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17533 January 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEER’S SYNDICATE, INC. v. FLORA S. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17564 January 31, 1962 - ARTURO DE SANTOS, ET AL. v. PETRONILO ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17746 and L-17807 January 31, 1962 - ALEJANDRO FACUNDO v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19260 January 31, 1962 - DELFIN ALBANO v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.