Case Digest (G.R. No. 45699) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves Silvestra Cuevo as the petitioner and Fausto Barredo as the respondent. It originated from a complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Cuevo sought damages following the drowning of her son, Anastacio Lozano, while employed as a carpenter on a construction site directed by Barredo. The incident occurred on August 3, 1935, during a strong wind and inclement weather, as a typhoon signal was raised in Manila. Lozano was tasked with cementing a concrete pier in the Pasig River, which was being constructed for a bridge annex to the Ayala Bridge. On that day, a launch passing nearby caused a log intended for use as construction material to drift away with the current of the river. Yoshio Tagashira, the foreman overseeing the work, shouted a warning to recover the log, stating that failure to do so would result in financial liability for the workers. Prompted by this direction, and in recognition of his ability as a swimmer, Lozano leaped into
Case Digest (G.R. No. 45699) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On August 3, 1935, during a typhoon in Manila when the Pasig River was swift and strong, Anastacio Lozano was employed as a carpenter by defendant Fausto Barredo. He was involved in constructing a concrete pier and bridge annex. A log, not secured and intended to be used as a pile in the construction, was carried away by the current after being disturbed by a wave generated by a passing launch. Yoshio Tagashira, the defendant’s foreman, observed the log being carried off and, with a threatening tone that implied the laborers would be held responsible for its loss, ordered its immediate recovery. Relying on his ability as a good swimmer and the urgency imposed by his superior’s command, Lozano leaped into the river to recover the log but was tragically drowned. Evidence showed that Lozano’s actions stemmed from the immediate pressure of the foreman’s order and the fear of personal financial liability, rather than a calculated decision to risk his life.Issues:
- Whether the defendant, as employer, is liable for the death of Anastacio Lozano under section 1, clause 1 and clause 2 of Act No. 1874, as amended by Act No. 2473.
- Whether the negligence of the foreman in issuing the hazardous command, without taking precautions to protect the employee, constitutes sufficient grounds to impose liability on the employer through the principle of vicarious liability.
- Whether the laborer’s action of leaping into the river, given his known ability to swim and under the immediate influence of the foreman’s order, can be attributed to his own negligence or should be excused on the basis that he lacked time to fully appreciate the risk involved.
- Whether the complainant’s allegations, which did not explicitly state the foreman’s negligence, are sufficient to establish a cause of action under the stipulated law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)