Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6870)
Factual Background
On May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning, while the deceased Filomeno Managuit served as a seaman aboard the M/S Pilar II, which was anchored about one and a half miles from the seashore of Arceli Dumarang, Palawan, a two-peso bill belonging to him was blown by the breeze into the sea. Filomeno jumped into the water to retrieve the bill and drowned.
Claim and Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought compensation in the sum of P2,038.40 under Act No. 3428 as amended, claiming that the death of her son resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as a seaman on the M/S Pilar II.
Procedural History
The original complaint was filed on October 18, 1950. Defendant moved to dismiss on November 1, 1950 on the ground that the complaint did not show an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint by order dated December 11, 1950. A motion for reconsideration was denied and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on October 30, 1952 but allowed the plaintiff the right to file an amended complaint within fifteen (15) days after remand. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 22, 1952. The trial court again granted a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the case without costs. Reconsideration was denied and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Issues Presented
The determinative issues were whether the death of Filomeno Managuit (1) arose out of his employment, (2) occurred in the course of his employment, and (3) was caused by his own notorious negligence within the meaning of section 4 of Act No. 3428.
Parties' Contentions
The plaintiff alleged that the two-peso bill was blown into the sea while the deceased was performing his duties aboard the M/S Pilar II and that his drowning occurred in the course of his employment. The defendant contended that the complaint failed to allege facts showing an accident "arising out of and in the course of the employment" and thus did not state a cause of action under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Trial and Appellate Rulings
The trial court twice dismissed the complaint, first the original and then the amended complaint, on motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court initially affirmed the dismissal of the original complaint but permitted amendment. Upon the second dismissal of the amended complaint, the Supreme Court again reviewed the record and affirmed the dismissal in the decision delivered by Concepcion, J., with the other members of the Court concurring.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that although the death occurred "in the course of" employment in the sense of time and place, the fatal accident did not "arise out of" the employment because the immediate origin of the drowning was the decedent's voluntary decision to jump into the sea to retrieve his bill, an act not peculiar to or specially incident to his employment as a seaman. The Court further held that the death was caused by the decedent's notorious negligence, which the Court equated with gross negligence, thereby barring compensation under section 4 of Act No. 3428. The Court affirmed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court anchored its analysis on sections 2 and 4 of Act No. 3428, which require three conditions for employer liability: that the accident arise out of the employment; that it occur in the course of the employment; and that it not be caused by the employee's notorious negligence. Citing Afable et al. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co. and authorities from foreign jurisprudence, the Court explained that "arising out of" refers to the origin or cause of the accident, while "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which it occurred. Applying that test, the Court conceded that the drowning took place in the course of employment because of the time and place but found that the origin of the fatal injury was the voluntary plunge into the sea rather than any risk peculiar to seafaring. The Court observed that the risk of jumping into water to retrieve a bill would equally confront a passenger or visitor and was not traceable in some special degree to the deceased's employment.
On the question of notorious negligence, the Court treated the phrase as tantamount to gross negligence, defined as the want of even slight care or a reckless disregard of safety. The Court applied that standard to the facts and concluded that Filomeno exhibited gross negligence in jumping into the sea one and a half miles from shore to recover a two-peso bill, a danger "clear, potent and obvious." The Court cited p
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-6870)
Parties and Posture
- Elena Amedo was the plaintiff and appellant who sued for compensation under Act No. 3428 as amended for the death of her son.
- Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc. was the defendant and appellee employer of the deceased seaman.
- The case was instituted on October 18, 1950 and proceeded through a motion to dismiss, an initial dismissal, an appeal to this Court, remand with leave to amend, an amended complaint, and a renewed dismissal followed by the present appeal.
- The trial court twice granted motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and the present decision affirms the dismissal.
Facts
- The deceased was Filomeno Managuit, an ordinary seaman on board the M/S Pilar II.
- The incident occurred on May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning while the vessel was anchored about one and one-half miles from the seashore of Arceli Dumarang, Palawan.
- The amended complaint alleged that a two-peso bill belonging to the deceased was blown by the breeze into the sea and that the deceased jumped into the water to retrieve it and was drowned.
- The plaintiff sought recovery of P2,038.40 as compensation for the death of her son.
Statutory Framework
- The action was predicated upon Act No. 3428, the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 3812 and Commonwealth Act No. 210, and the Court disregarded Republic Act No. 772 because it took effect after the accident.
- Section 2 of Act No. 3428 provided compensation when an employee received a personal injury from any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.
- Section 4 of Act No. 3428 excluded compensation for injuries caused by the voluntary intent of the employee, by drunkenness, or by notorious negligence.
- The Court identified three essential conditions for employer liability under the statute: the accident must arise out of the employment, it must occur in the course of the employment, and it must not be caused by notorious negligence.
Issues
- The principal issue was whether the death of Filomeno Managuit resulted from an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of Act No. 3428.
- A subsidiary issue was whether the death was caused by the deceased's notorious negligence, thereby excluding compensation under Section 4.
- The procedural issue before the Court was whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action after this Court's prior remand and permission to amend.
Procedural History
- The original complaint filed October 18, 1950 was dismissed by the trial court on December 11, 1950 for failure to state a cause of action.
- A motion for reconsideration was denied and the plaintiff appealed to this Court which on October 30, 1952 affirmed the dismissal but allowed the filing of an amended complaint within fifteen days after remand.
- The plain