Case Digest (G.R. No. 36858)
Facts:
Justa Afable and the Minors Potenciano Madlangbayan and Rosa Madlangbayan, by Justa Afable, as Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs. Singer Sewing Machine Company, Defendant and Appellee, G.R. No. 36858, March 06, 1933, the Supreme Court, Vickers, J., writing for the Court.The appeal arose from a decision of Judge Pedro Concepcion of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs without a special finding as to costs. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Leopoldo Madlangbayan; the defendant is Singer Sewing Machine Company, Madlangbayan’s employer (collector) in the district of San Francisco del Monte.
Facts adduced at trial show that Leopoldo Madlangbayan was a collector for Singer, paid an eight percent commission on collections and was listed as residing in his assigned district. He had, however, removed to Teodora Alonso Street in the City of Manila without notifying the company. On the afternoon of Sunday, November 16, 1930, while riding a bicycle and returning home after making collections in San Francisco del Monte, he was run over and fatally injured at the corner of O’Donnell and Zurbaran streets in Manila by a truck driven by Vitaliano Sumoay.
On November 21, 1930, Sumoay was criminally convicted of homicide through reckless negligence and sentenced to imprisonment and to indemnify Madlangbayan’s heirs P1,000. On February 19, 1931, the widow and children filed suit against Singer to recover under Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812, seeking P100 burial expenses and P1,745.12 (computed as 50% of P16.78 for 208 weeks) as compensation under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. 3428. The defendant denied liability and pleaded, among other defenses, that plaintiffs had already obtained a judgment against Sumoay, that the deceased was violating a City of Manila ordinance forbidding work on Sunday, and that Act No. 3428 (as amended) was unconstitutional.
The trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila) dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Which statute governs compensation liability for the death — Act No. 3428 or Act No. 3812?
- Did Leopoldo Madlangbayan’s death occur "due to and in the pursuance of the employment" so as to make it compensable under Act No. 3428, §2?
- Were the defendant’s special defenses (prior judgment against the third-party driver, violation of a Sunday-work ordinance, and constitutional objections to the statute...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)