Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1976 > April 1976 Decisions > G.R. No. L-42134 April 30, 1976 - ABOITIZ & COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-42134. April 30, 1976.]

ABOITIZ & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, HERMOGENA T. CAÑETE and PIONEER DETECTIVE CREDIT SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Respondents.

Abelardo P. Cecilio for petitioner. .

Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. for respondent Cañete.

Enrique V. Español & Rodolfo M. Cornejo for respondent W. C. C.

Edgar Gica for respondent Pioneer Detective Credit Security Agency, Inc.

SYNOPSIS


The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the decision of its Cebu Unit ordering petitioner to pay respondent-claimant benefits for the death of her husband who was a security guard assigned to petitioner’s establishment. Upon a petition to review, the Supreme Court gave limited due course thereto insofar only as petitioner claimed the right to be reimbursed by respondent security agency of all liability from the claim that had been filed against both of them jointly and alternatively. The court thus treated the petition as a special civil action.

The Supreme Court ordered respondent security agency, the direct employer of the deceased, to reimburse and pay petitioner all the amounts adjudged against the latter since under the contract for security guard service, the said security agency assumed sole responsibility for all liabilities under they labor laws including the Workmen’s Compensation Act.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS; INSTANCE WHERE EMPLOYER IS NOT ULTIMATELY LIABLE THEREFOR. — Although the employer is statutorily liable for the death compensation for purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, still the security agency should be liable ultimately as the direct employer who employed and furnished the security guard in pursuance of its business of providing business establishment with the services of security guards where under the contract for security guard service, the security agency expressly assumed sole responsibility for all liabilities under the labor laws including the Workmen’s Compensation Act.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


While respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission correctly held petitioner as the owner of the establishment guarded by the deceased security guard liable for the payment of death compensation as the statutory employer, respondent commission erred in not holding respondent Pioneer Detective Credit Security Agency, Inc. as the direct employer or agency who supplied the security guard liable in turn to petitioner for reimbursement of the amount of compensation awarded.

In its Resolution of even date, the Court denied for lack of merit the petition of petitioner Aboitiz & Co. Inc. for review of respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s decision affirming its Cebu Unit’s decision ordering petitioner to pay respondent claimant Hermogena T. Cañete as widow and her minor children death benefits in the sum of P6,000.00 for the death of Anastacio Cañete (from hypertensive heart disease which caused a fatal heart attack in the course of his employment) plus P200.00 for burial expenses, P300.00 attorney’s fee and P61.00 administrative fee and assessing the further sum of P300.00 as attorney’s fee and P5.00 as costs of review in the commission.

The Court however gave limited due course to the petition insofar as petitioner claimed the right to be reimbursed by respondent security agency and complained against the commission’s absolving sub silentio said agency of all liability from the claim that had been filed against both of them jointly and alternatively. The Court further resolved to treat the limited petition as a special civil action and declared the same submitted for decision after respondent security agency had failed to file its comment despite an extension secured by its counsel, Atty. Edgar Gica, for the purpose (and for which he has been cited for contempt of court).

Petitioner has valid cause for complaint. Under its contract for security guard service with respondent security agency, the latter had expressly assumed sole responsibility for all liabilities under the labor laws including the Workmen’s Compensation Act that may be claimed by the guard, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"h) The AGENCY shall solely assume all responsibilities and liabilities for any claim or demand by or against the guard arising under all Philippine Labor Laws, including overtime pay, extra compensation on Sundays and legal holidays, liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Social Security Act, . . . ." 1

While petitioner was statutorily liable 2 for the death compensation for purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, still the security agency should be held ultimately liable as the direct employer who employed and furnished the security guard in pursuance of its business of providing business establishments with the services of security guards. Furthermore, as already indicated, the security agency was contractually liable to hold petitioner safe and harmless from any such claims by virtue of the agency’s express contractual undertaking to assume sole and ultimate liability therefor.

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing respondent Pioneer Detective Credit Security Agency, Inc. to reimburse and pay petitioner all the amounts that were adjudged against petitioner in the respondent commission’s decision of November 12, 1975. SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, Rollo, page 11.

2. (a) "Employer" includes every person or association of persons, incorporated or not, public or private, and the legal representative of the deceased employer. It includes the owner or lessee of a factory or establishment or place of work or any other person who is virtually the owner or manager of the business carried on in the establishment or place of work but who, for the reason that there is an independent contractor in the same, or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of laborers employed there." (Sec. 39 Workmen’s Compensation Act as amended.)




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-1976 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 27427 April 7, 1976 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. JAMILA & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31342 April 7, 1976 - JUAN T. BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36373 April 7, 1976 - DIONISIO SORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39962 April 7, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO BERIALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42800 April 7, 1976 - LIM SE v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-39652 April 26, 1976 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30152 April 29, 1976 - MARGARITO VILLACORTA, ET AL. v. REYNALDO HONRADO

  • A.M. No. P-11 April 30, 1976 - MANUEL J. BURGOS v. ZOILA BADUEL

  • A.M. No. 138-CFI April 30, 1976 - JUANITO BENAOJAN v. EDUARDO TUTAAN

  • A.M. No. P-182 April 30, 1976 - EUGENIO RECTO v. REMEDIOS RACELIS

  • A.M. No. 202-MJ April 30, 1976 - SOFIA P. BALLEZA v. JOSE R. ASTORGA

  • A.M. No. 252-J April 30, 1976 - HADJI ESMAYATEN LUCMAN v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS

  • A.M. No. 329-MJ April 30, 1976 - ANGEL RECONOSE v. TEOFILO N. TUMULAK

  • G.R. No. L-27590 April 30, 1976 - FELIX O. ALFELOR, SR., ET AL. v. BONIFACIO C. INTIA

  • G.R. No. L-27682 April 30, 1976 - TIMOTEO DULTRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27956 April 30, 1976 - DIONISIO DUMLAO v. QUALITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28642 April 30, 1976 - MARIA CASTRO, ET AL. v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30713 April 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO B. SUMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30742 April 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-36455 April 30, 1976 - JOSE DIOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37423 April 30, 1976 - VICENTE J. FRANCISCO v. MEDIA ADVISORY COUNCIL

  • G.R. No. L-37678 April 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO ABAY

  • G.R. No. L-40037 April 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON E. NAZARENO

  • G.R. No. L-40535 April 30, 1976 - FELIXBERTO OBUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40891 April 30, 1976 - CLARO S. CORTES v. NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON

  • G.R. No. L-40934 April 30, 1976 - MELENCIO CANTURNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41480 April 30, 1976 - GONZALO SY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-41530 April 30, 1976 - JOSE E. ABINALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA CITY, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41667 April 30, 1976 - DELTA MOTOR SALES CORPORATION v. IGNACIO MANGOSING

  • G.R. No. L-41692 April 30, 1976 - EUGENIO CABRAL v. BENIGNO M. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-42134 April 30, 1976 - ABOITIZ & COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42323 April 30, 1976 - EUFRONIO RUELAN v. REPUBLIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42675 April 30, 1976 - CONSOLACION M. TONSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-43677 April 30, 1976 - TEOFILA MARCELO, ET AL. v. MERCHANTS BANKING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38957 April 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO PALENCIA, ET AL.