May 31, 1961
Ponente: Concepcion, J.
FACTS:
·
In June 1955, Juan Alarcon, a teacher, hired
Urzino Azaña and his brother to dig a well on his land in Caramoan, Camarines
Sur. After the day's work the two had dug a hole about five feet meters deep
without striking water.
·
On the next day Urzino resumed his work with
one Generoso Zulueta as co-worker. Generoso was also hired by the defendant in
place of Urzino's brother who did not return to work.
·
Urzino and Generoso started their work early in
the morning. Urzino was lowered into the hole with a rope to dig deeper. On
reaching the bottom he quickly remarked that he was not feeling well. Generoso
told him to get ready to be pulled up, but a moment later Urzino fainted and
slumped helplessly into a sitting position.
·
Generoso quickly called for help. A policeman
and other persons immediately responded. After their arrival, Generoso lowered
a ladder and proceeded to descend into the hole. After having gone down about
two meters, he felt a current of hot air with an obnoxious odor around him. He
soon realized that he was not feeling well. Accordingly, he desisted from
descending farther and instead he climbed up out of the hole. One of the men
then volunteered to go down in his place, but he too could not reach the bottom
for the same reason.
·
Realizing that it was not safe to go into the
hole, Generoso and others thought of another method to get Urzino out. With a
rope tied into a loop on one end, they caught one of his legs and pulled up his
body. They next put him on bed while someone summoned a doctor. In less than
five minutes the municipal health officer arrived. He quickly attempted to
revive Urzino but his efforts proved unavailing because he was already dead. He
certified that Urzino died of asphyxia.
·
On the day of his death Urzino was single, 20
years old, and living with his mother, Engracia Alarcon. It was Engracia who
filed before the CFI of Camarines Sur the action to recover compensation for
her son's death under the provisions of Art. 1711 of the Civil Code.
·
The CFI, however, rendered judgment dismissing
the complaint upon the ground that, "not being owner of enterprises or
employer of laborers in industry or business", Juan Alarcon was not liable
under Article 1711 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to pay compensation for
the death of Urzino Azaña, the same being purely accidental in nature. Hence,
this appeal by Engracia.
RULING:
Whether
Art. 1711 of the Civil Code applies in the present case. – NO.
·
Juan Alarcon does not own any
enterprise. He is merely a school teacher who needed a well. Neither does he
fall under the category of "other employers" mentioned in said
Article 1711. Under the principle of ejusdem
generis, said "other employers" must be construed to refer to
persons who belong to a class analogous to "owners of enterprises",
such as those operating a business or engaged in a particular industry or
trade, requiring its managers to contract the services of laborers, workers
and/or employees.
·
The terms "capital",
"management", "industrialist", "manager" and
"owners of enterprises", used to describe the employers alluded to in
said section 2, indicate that they contemplate those engaged more or less in
business or industry. In fact, Article 1711 merely states the philosophy
underlying the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428) and must be
interpreted in relation thereto, for Article 2196 of the same Code provides
that "compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws".
·
Pursuant to section 39(b) of Act No. 3428, as
amended: '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.
·
Inasmuch as the employment of Urzino Azaña by
Juan Alarcon was "purely casual" and was not "for the purposes
of the occupation or business" of Juan Alarcon, it was clear that Urzino
Azaña was not covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Neither may Engracia Alarcon avail of the benefits of the Employer's Liability
Act (Act No. 1874), which she does not invoke, for it is not claimed that
Urzino's death was due to "a defect in the condition of the ways, works or
machinery connected with or used in the business of the employer," or to
"the negligence of a person in the service of the employer." Hence,
there is no means by which Juan Alarcon may be held liable for Azaña's death,
due to an accidental cause or fortuitous event.