Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6870)
Facts:
Elena Amedo v. Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc., G.R. No. L-6870. May 24, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Elena Amedo sued defendant-appellee Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc. to recover P2,038.40 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the death of her son, Filomeno Managuit, a seaman aboard the M/S Pilar II. The original complaint, filed October 18, 1950, alleged that on May 27, 1949 the deceased jumped into the water to retrieve a two-peso bill and drowned.
On November 1, 1950 the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that the drowning did not constitute an “accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint by order dated December 11, 1950; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on October 30, 1952, affirmed the dismissal but allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within fifteen days after remand.
Pursuant to that leave, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 22, 1952 alleging that on May 27, 1949, at about 11:30 a.m., while performing duties as an ordinary seaman on the M/S Pilar II anchored about 1½ miles off the seashore of Arceli Dumarang, Palawan, a two-peso bill was blown into the sea and, in his effort to retrieve it, Filomeno Managuit jumped into the water and drowned. The defendant again moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint, and a motion for reconsideration was denied. The case returned to the Supreme Court on appeal.
The parties’ dispute was adjudicated under Act No. 3428 (the Workmen’s Compensation Act) as amended by Act No. 3812 and Commonwealth Act No. 210; the Court disregarded Republic Act No. 772 because it took effect after the accident. The Court framed the relevant statu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the drowning of Filomeno Managuit arise out of and in the course of his employment so as to state a cause of action under Act No. 3428?
- If the drowning did not arise out of his employment, was it nevertheless excluded from compensation because it was caused by his “notorious negligenc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)