Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13374)
Facts:
Francisco Bautista v. Gerardo Murillo, G.R. No. L-13374. January 31, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.Gerardo Murillo (claimant/respondent below) filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against Francisco Bautista (employer/petitioner) for an injury suffered during demolition and reconstruction of a building where Bautista conducted his business. Bautista contended the work was on his residential building and that Murillo was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The referee who heard the evidence found that Bautista operated a gravel-and-sand business on the ground floor of his residence at No. 350 Dimasalang St., Manila, and that he decided on March 16, 1955 to demolish the business premises and erect a new building. Murillo had become acquainted with Bautista through his brother Jesus, a servant of Bautista; Murillo was not a regular employee but had volunteered to perform odd jobs during the construction and was permitted to lodge in Bautista’s house. He was paid P3.00 a day for services rendered. While engaged in demolition work a stone wall toppled and fractured Murillo’s left leg. Bautista personally arranged and paid for the claimant’s hospital treatment.
The referee concluded that Murillo, though not a regular employee, was an impliedly employed “casual” laborer helping in construction connected with Bautista’s business and awarded P699.56 as disability compensation and P7.00 as Commission fees. Bautista filed a petition for review from the referee’s decision which was denied; he then appealed to the Workmen’s Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- As a procedural/substantive threshold: Is Murillo, who was paid P3.00 a day for odd jobs and described as a casual laborer, an “employee” or “laborer” within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and thus entitled to compensation?
- If Murillo is a casual employee, was his employment “for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer” so as to bring his i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)