G.R. No. 44753 - Francisco vs. Consing

Plaintiffs: Adoracion Francisco, Leonila Francisco, and Antonio Francisco, Jr., represented by their guardian ad litem, Policarpio Carballo.
Defendant: Feliciano Consing, engaged in farming and sugar cane operations in Negros Occidental.

The case arises under Act No. 3428, known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 3812.
The legal issue involves the entitlement to benefits under the said Act when injuries occur during employment.

Admitting the factual allegations regarding the employment and circumstances during 1929 and 1930.
Acknowledging that during the years 1929 and 1930, he was engaged in sugar cane planting and other related farming operations.

The defendant admitted that Antonio Francisco was employed for 25 days before August 2, 1930, as a laborer tasked with loading and unloading sugar cane and sugar cane seedling nibs at a wage of P3.60 a week (modified from the originally alleged P4 a week).

The parties agreed to include the ante-mortem affidavit of the deceased Antonio Francisco, given on August 2, 1930, which detailed the circumstances leading to his injury.
The affidavit recounted that while riding in a truck loaded with sugar-cane points, a carabao tied by the roadside suddenly ran into the path of the truck.
In a moment of fear, Antonio Francisco jumped out of the truck, leading to the truck’s collision with his left leg, causing injury.
Antonio Francisco acknowledged that the accident occurred because of his own action (jumping) and not due to any fault of the truck driver.

The defendant had paid both the medical treatment expenses and funeral costs for the deceased.

Antonio Francisco was employed specifically for loading and unloading sugar cane and its seedling nibs from the defendant’s truck.
The wage and the manner of engagement became central to establishing whether he was a farm laborer or an employee under the Act.

The defendant contended that being engaged in tasks that did not involve the operation of any machinery (i.e., not driving the truck) excluded him from the protection of the Act.
Plaintiffs maintained that the nature of his work, revolving around trucks and the handling of mechanical implements, qualified him for coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The decision referenced provisions and interpretations from Louisiana law, particularly the Employers’ Liability Act (Act No. 20, 1914) and related cases.
The court considered precedents such as Snear vs. Eiserloh and Richardson vs. Crescent Forwarding & Transportation Co. to determine that even employees who load or unload motor vehicles may be covered by such statutes.

Whether the deceased Antonio Francisco was a farm laborer or an employee entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Whether the nature of his work—loading and unloading sugar-cane points, which brought him into frequent contact with mechanical equipment (the truck)—qualifies as “industrial employment” under section 39(d) of Act No. 3428 as amended by Act No. 3812.
The interpretation of “operation of mechanical implements” as included within the ambit of the Act despite not having the role of a truck driver.

How the local statutory interpretation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act compares to similar provisions under the Louisiana Employers’ Liability Act.
Whether judicial precedents from Louisiana regarding employees engaged in loading and unloading can be validly applied to determine the nature of the employment in this case.