Case Digest (G.R. No. 45699)
Facts:
Silvestra Cuevo v. Fausto Barredo, G.R. No. 45699. February 24, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Silvestra Cuevo (plaintiff below) sued respondent Fausto Barredo (defendant below) in the Court of First Instance of Manila for indemnity under Act No. 1874 (employers' liability) for the death of her son, Anastacio Lozano, who drowned on August 3, 1935 while working as a carpenter on a bridge annex project. The complaint alleged that during a gale and with a strong Pasig River current a loose log belonging to the defendant was swept away; when Lozano attempted to recover it he was carried off and drowned.
At trial the evidence showed that the defendant’s foreman, Yoshio Tagashira, seeing a log being carried away, shouted that the log must be recovered or the men would have to pay for it; in response Lozano — a good swimmer — immediately leaped into the river and drowned. The Court of First Instance absolved the defendant and dismissed the complaint; the second division of the Court of Appeals affirmed that absolutory judgment, reasoning that liability under section 1, clause 1, of Act No. 1874 did not attach because the log was merely material and not a defective way, work or machinery, and that clause 2 liability did not attach because the death was accidental and not attributable to negligence of a superintendent or, alternatively, because the deceased failed to exercise due care.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in this Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment. The Supreme Court’s review (limited to conclusions of law inferred by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact) considered the evidence, statutory provisions (including Act No. 2473, which creates a presumption of employer negligence in specified litigations), and Civil Code agency rules; the Court reversed the lower courts and ordered respondent to pay indemn...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Is a complaint for statutory indemnity under Act No. 1874, when it fails to allege negligence of the employer’s superintendent, nevertheless sufficient where Act No. 2473 creates a presumption of employer negligence?
- Substantive: Was the defendant employer civilly liable under section 1, clause 2, of Act No. 1874 for the drowning of Anastacio Lozano caused by the foreman’s conduct?
- Substantive: Did petitioner satisfy the dependency requirement in section 2 of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)