G.R. No. 44352 - Rolan vs. Perez

The plaintiff, Moises Rolan, was employed by the defendant, Antonio Perez (alias Aboody Perez), as a laborer at the La Loma Dairy Farm located in the barrio of La Loma, municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal.
Employed on a daily wage of P1 from November 1933, his work included fixing the barbed wire fence, weeding the land, and cutting tall branches off primarily acacia trees.
In addition to these tasks, he occasionally undertook carpentry and tinwork when required, all within the boundaries of the dairy farm.
His tasks were performed in furtherance of the operational needs of the dairy farm, ensuring the facilities were maintained for the benefit of the milch cows and, consequently, the profitability of the enterprise.

On an afternoon in April 1934 at about three o’clock, while the plaintiff was trimming an acacia tree branch at the border of the dairy farm, adverse weather (strong winds and heavy downpour) was noted.
The branch being cut gave way, falling upon an electric wire running along the road adjacent to the farm.
The impact produced electric sparks which severed the wire; the dislodged, electrified wire then fell onto a barbed wire fence supported by the acacia tree.
The contact between the charged fence and the tree trunk transmitted an electric current to the branch where the plaintiff was working.
As a result, the plaintiff sustained severe electric shocks, causing him to fall from a height of approximately six meters onto the wire fence.
The injuries were extensive, notably a dislocated spinal column and substantial injury to his right leg, resulting in a loss of 25% usage of his right leg and foot.
Following his fall, he was hospitalized at the Chinese General Hospital and later at St. Luke’s Hospital, remaining sick and unable to resume work for several weeks.

The plaintiff initiated legal action to recover P155.57 as compensation for his permanent partial injury due to the accident.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on two primary grounds:

It classified the plaintiff not as a laborer but as a servant, thereby barring him from availing benefits under Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812.
It held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the gross income of the defendant’s dairy farm in 1933 reached the threshold of P20,000.

Specific evidentiary issues arose concerning a document (Exhibit E) submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney, a letter from the Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue, which purported to show that the defendant’s income tax return exceeded the stipulated gross income threshold.
The court sustained the objection to Exhibit E, finding it incompetent, and rejected it.
The plaintiff assigned errors to the trial court’s decisions regarding his employment status and the evidentiary rejection, as well as the subsequent dismissal of his complaint based on these grounds.

Whether the plaintiff’s tasks and work conditions should classify him as a laborer or a servant.
If the occasional performance of carpentry and tin work detracts from or supports his classification as a laborer under Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812.

Whether the accident, which did not involve direct milking of cows, nevertheless arose out of or in the course of labor, thus falling within the purview of the said Acts.
How the definition of “laborer” under the statute should be interpreted in view of the plaintiff’s modes of employment and tasks performed on the dairy farm.

Whether the trial court erred in requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s gross income for the year 1933 was not less than P20,000.
The proper allocation of the burden of proof regarding the gross income defense under subsection (d) of section 39 of Act No. 3428, as amended.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint, compounded by the evidentiary issues, constituted a substantial error warranting a reversal and the presentation of a motion for a new trial.
The appropriate remedy in correcting the judicial errors identified in the case.