Facts:

The case involves Elena Amedo, the plaintiff and appellant, versus Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc., the defendant and appellee. The events leading to the lawsuit took place on May 27, 1949, at approximately 11:30 AM. The case was filed to collect compensation under Act No. 3428, known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 3812. The deceased, Filomeno Managuit, who was a seaman working on board the M/S "Pilar II", drowned while attempting to retrieve a two-peso bill that had fallen into the water. Amedo, being the mother of Managuit and wholly dependent on him for support, initiated the suit against Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc., the owner and operator of the M/S "Pilar II". The defendant responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the facts presented did not establish a valid cause of action. The lower court agreed and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the allegations were insufficient to warrant a cause of action. Amedo&

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Plaintiff: Elena Amedo, the mother of the deceased seaman, filing the suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812).
• Defendant: Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc., owner, operator, and manager of the M/S "Pilar II".

Incident Allegation

• The complaint centers on paragraph 5, stating that on May 27, 1949, at approximately 11:30 in the morning, the deceased seaman, Filomeno Managuit, was aboard the M/S "Pilar II" in his capacity as a seaman.
• It was alleged that while on board, the seaman dropped his two-peso bill into the water and, in an effort to retrieve it, he jumped into the water, which resulted in his drowning.

Procedural History

• The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts stated did not amount to a cause of action.
• The trial court dismissed the complaint on the basis that the requisite facts were insufficient to uphold a cause of action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff but was subsequently denied.
• As a result, the case reached the appellate stage, with the focal issue being the sufficiency of the pleaded facts in paragraph 5 of the complaint.

Contextual and Circumstantial Considerations

• The factual timeline—occurring at 11:30 a.m.—raises questions regarding the seaman’s engagement in his official duties, as it is typically a time when seamen are occupied with tasks other than leisure activities.
• The nature of the incident itself, wherein the seaman was retrieving a personal possession (the two-peso bill), suggests that he might not have been performing work-related duties at the time, but rather engaging in a personal act.
• The complaint does not categorically aver that the seaman was performing his assigned work at the time of the incident, which is pivotal in workmen’s compensation cases.

Issue:

Sufficiency of the Complaint

• Whether the factual allegation in paragraph 5 of the complaint is adequate to constitute a cause of action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
• Whether the pleading sufficiently averred that the seaman was engaged in the work assigned to him on board the vessel at the time the accident occurred.

Nature of the Incident

• If the incident, as described, establishes that the seaman was executing his work duties or merely engaged in a personal act (i.e., retrieving a lost personal item).
• Whether the established fact of his presence aboard the vessel inherently implies his engagement in work-related activities at the time of the accident.

Elements Required for a Compensation Claim

• The necessity of averring that the seaman was actively performing his assigned duties, which is essential to validate a claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation scheme.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)