G.R. No. 181704 - Bureau of Customs Employees Association vs. Teves

The petitioner, Compania Maritima, is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine laws engaged in interisland trade and owns the vessel M/V BASILAN.
The respondents include Ernesta Cabagnot Vda. de Hio, acting for herself and as guardian-ad-litem for her minor children, and the Pablo Velez Watchmen's Agency, a single proprietorship owned by Mr. Pablo Velez engaged in supplying watchmen and protective services.
The watchmen of Pablo Velez’s agency are recruited from the Manila Bay Watchmen’s Association through a collective bargaining contract, under which a commission (15% of the total wages) is deducted from the watchmen's pay.

In the latter part of August 1954, a strike was staged by the Marine Officer’s Guild. In response, Compania Maritima contracted the Pablo Velez Watchmen’s Agency to provide security for its officers who did not join the strike.
Among the watchmen detailed to the company was Dionisio Hio, who was assigned as a gangwayman aboard the M/V BASILAN.

On September 4, 1954, during his night shift on the M/V BASILAN, Dionisio Hio and other watchmen were selected and taken by the vessel’s Chief Engineer to his residence in Perla, Harrison, Pasay City.
At the engineer’s residence, drinks were served and after several rounds of liquor, the watchmen left. They returned to their assigned posts at about 2:00 a.m. on September 5, 1954.
At approximately 6:00 a.m. on September 5, the body of Dionisio Hio was found floating near the gangway of the M/V BASILAN, where he was assigned.

It was established that the salary of the deceased was paid directly from the funds of Compania Maritima, indicating an employer-employee relationship despite the absence of a written employment contract.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission determined that Dionisio Hio died in an accident arising in the course of his employment and declared Compania Maritima as his employer.
The Commission ordered payment of compensation to his survivors, which included a death compensation of P4,000.00, P200.00 for reimbursement of burial expenses, and P41.00 as fees required by the applicable law.

Whether or not the deceased was an employee of Compania Maritima entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Whether or not the deceased was intoxicated while performing his duty at the time of his death, which could potentially absolve the employer of liability.

Testimonies of the Pablo Velez Watchmen’s Agency witnesses were conflicting regarding the movements of the deceased after leaving the Chief Engineer’s residence.
The claimant widow testified that the deceased was not drunk while on duty.
The autopsy report and the testimony of Dr. Cabreira from the Manila Police Department indicated no signs of alcohol in the body of the deceased.

Whether Dionisio Hio, despite the absence of a written employment contract, was employed by Compania Maritima based on the payment of his wages and his assigned duties aboard the vessel.
Whether his services were integral to the business operations of Compania Maritima or if they were merely casual and incidental in nature.

Whether the death of Dionisio Hio, occurring during his employment, was attributable to an accident arising from his work.
Whether or not his alleged intoxication, as claimed by the petitioner to negate liability, was proven by clear and convincing evidence to have contributed to his incapacity while on duty.