Title
Alarcon vs. Alarcon
Case
G.R. No. L-15692
Decision Date
May 31, 1961
A laborer died while digging a well for personal use; the Supreme Court ruled the employer, not engaged in business, was not liable under Article 1711 of the Civil Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199107)

Factual Background of the Incident

On June 3, 1955, defendant Juan Alarcon hired Urzino Azana and his brother to dig a well on his land. After a day of work, they had reached a depth of about five meters without encountering water. The following day, Urzino continued to dig with a new co-worker, Generoso Zulueta. During the work, Urzino reported feeling unwell while being lowered into the hole. Generoso, noticing his state, attempted to assist him but Urzino ultimately slumped down and failed to respond. Subsequent attempts by Generoso and others to rescue Urzino were hindered by the presence of hazardous gases, resulting in Urzino's eventual death due to asphyxia.

Legal Proceedings and Claims

Engracia Alarcon filed a suit seeking compensation for her son’s death under Article 1711 of the Civil Code, which mandates that owners of enterprises and other employers compensate laborers for injuries or death sustained in the course of employment. The fundamental legal issue raised was whether the defendant, as a school teacher not engaged in a commercial enterprise, qualified as an employer under this provision.

Defendant’s Denial and Counterclaim

In his answer, Juan Alarcon admitted certain facts while denying others. He asserted a special defense claiming that the plaintiff was estopped from filing this action because she had previously sought the same redress from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. He also filed a counterclaim for damages amounting to P3,000, citing alleged moral and actual damages stemming from the lawsuit.

Court of First Instance Ruling

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that he was not liable under Article 1711 because he did not operate an enterprise, nor did he fit the definition of "other employers" intended in the law. The court emphasized that the employment of Urzino Azana was purely casual and unrelated to the defendant's primary occupation as a teacher. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint.

Legal Interpretations and Applicability

The court interpreted Article 1711 within the context of the broader civil law framework, emphasizing that terms such as "capital," "management," "industrialist," and "manager" denote individuals engaged in commercial or industrial activities. The purpose of Article 1711 and its relation to worker compensation provisions reflected a commitment to social justice, ensuring fair tre

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.