G.R. No. 46549 - Lim Bun Uan vs. Dizon

On June 3, 1955, the defendant, a school teacher in need of a well on his property in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, hired Urzino Azana and his brother to dig a well.
The task for the day involved beginning the digging process on the defendant’s land; however, the workers dug a hole about five feet (meters) deep without encountering water.

On the next day, the defendant resumed work by hiring Urzino Azana again, this time replacing his absent brother with a new hired worker, Generoso Zulueta.
Early in the morning, Urzino and Generoso started the work:

Urzino was lowered into the hole with a rope to dig deeper.
Upon reaching the bottom, he expressed discomfort and later fainted, settling in a sitting position.

Generoso promptly alerted a policeman and other bystanders for help.
A ladder was lowered to allow Generoso to descend further in order to assist.
After descending about two meters, Generoso noticed a strong current of hot air with an obnoxious odor, which caused him to experience discomfort, forcing him to abandon his attempt to rescue further by descending deeper.
Additional assistance was sought; one man volunteered to descend but similarly could not reach the bottom due to the hazardous conditions.

In a final effort to rescue Urzino, the helpers tied a rope into a loop, caught one of his legs and pulled his body upward.
Urzino was placed on a bed while a doctor was summoned by one of the rescuers.
The municipal health officer, arriving within five minutes, attempted reviving Urzino; however, his efforts were unsuccessful as Urzino was already dead.
The death was certified to have been caused by asphyxia (as per Exhibit A).
At the time of his death, Urzino was 20 years old, single, and living with his mother, who is the plaintiff in the case.

The plaintiff, Urzino’s mother, filed the action to recover compensation for her son’s death under Article 1711 of the Civil Code.
In his answer, the defendant admitted certain allegations but denied others, and raised a special defense of estoppel, claiming that the plaintiff had previously raised the same issue before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Additionally, the defendant set up a counterclaim for P3,000.00 as actual and moral damages.

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissed the complaint on the ground that the defendant was not deemed an “owner of enterprises” or an “employer of laborers in industry or business” within the meaning of Article 1711.
The trial judge noted that the accidental nature of the event (Urzino’s death by asphyxia) further excluded the defendant from liability under the said provision.

Whether the defendant, being merely a school teacher and not engaged in business or industry, falls within the ambit of Article 1711 of the Civil Code which obligates “owners of enterprises and other employers” to compensate laborers.

Does the casual nature of Urzino Azana’s employment remove him from the protection afforded by the provisions of Article 1711?
Whether the label “other employers” as used in Article 1711, when interpreted ejusdem generis, is restricted to those akin to “owners of enterprises” operating in business or industry.

The Proper Interpretation and Application of the Workmen’s Compensation Regime

Whether the employment arrangement in the case, being “purely casual” and outside the scope of the employer’s habitual business activity, qualifies Urzino as an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Whether alternative legal remedies or provisions (such as the Employer’s Liability Act) should be invoked in cases of accidental death where the employment is non-regular.