Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13374)
Factual Background
The referee found that Francisco Bautista conducted a gravel and sand business on the ground floor of his residence at No. 350 Dimasalang St., Manila, while his family occupied the upper floor. On March 16, 1955, Bautista decided to demolish the business premises and erect a new building. The business was temporarily moved to a house about 10 meters away owned by Bautista’s brother. Gerardo Murillo had been introduced to Bautista by his brother, Jesus Murillo, who was a servant of Bautista. Murillo lodged at Bautista’s residence and volunteered to perform odd jobs during the construction. While part of a stone wall was being demolished, the wall toppled and fractured Murillo’s left leg.
Remedial Acts Taken Immediately After the Accident
Upon learning of the accident, Bautista personally directed that Murillo be taken to the North General Hospital and later to the National Orthopedic Hospital. Bautista paid the incidental medical expenses. The referee found that Murillo received P3.00 per day in consideration of the services he rendered during construction.
Proceedings Before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
Murillo filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The claim was controverted by Bautista on the ground that the construction was of his residential building and that Murillo was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The referee, after receiving evidence, concluded that Murillo was an impliedly employed "casual" laborer performing odd jobs in connection with the construction of a building associated with Bautista’s business. The referee awarded Murillo P699.56 for disability compensation and ordered payment of P7.00 to the Commission under Section 55. Bautista sought review; the referee’s decision was affirmed by the Commission in a resolution dated December 19, 1957.
Issue Presented on Review
The principal question presented to the Court was whether a person engaged as a casual laborer, working for remuneration in the demolition and reconstruction of premises where the employer conducted business, falls within the statutory definition of "laborer" or "employee" under Section 39 (b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and thus is entitled to compensation for injury sustained in the course of such work.
Parties’ Contentions
Bautista argued that Murillo was not a regular employee but merely a casual worker who performed odd jobs because Murillo was permitted to lodge in Bautista’s residence; hence, Bautista asserted that Murillo’s employment was purely casual and not for the purposes of Bautista’s occupation or business, and therefore excluded from compensation under Section 39 (b). Murillo relied on the referee’s findings that he was paid for services rendered and that his work occurred in connection with the construction of the premises where Bautista’s business was carried on.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning of the Court
The Court examined Section 39 (b) which defines "'Laborer' ... as a synonym of 'employee' and means every person who has entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. It does not include a person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer." The Court noted that, as a rule, purely casual employment falls outside the Act; however, the exclusion applies only where the employment is not for the purposes of the employer’s occupation or business. The referee’s findings established that Murillo, though ca
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-13374)
Parties and Posture
- Francisco Bautista was the employer and the petitioner in this Court's review.
- Gerardo Murillo was the workman and the claimant who instituted the claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
- The referee rendered findings and awarded compensation which the Commission affirmed in its resolution dated December 19, 1957.
- The employer sought further review of the Commission's affirmation in this Court.
- The opinion was delivered by BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., with concurrence of the listed Justices.
Key Factual Allegations
- Francisco Bautista conducted a gravel-and-sand business on the ground floor of his residential house at No. 350 Dimasalang St., Manila, while his family occupied the upper floor.
- On March 16, 1955, Bautista decided to demolish the business premises and erect a new building, temporarily transferring his business to his brother's house about ten meters away.
- Gerardo Murillo came to know Bautista through his brother Jesus Murillo, a servant of Bautista, and lodged in Bautista's residence at his brother's invitation.
- Murillo volunteered to perform odd jobs during the demolition and reconstruction and received remuneration of P3.00 a day for his services.
- While part of a stone wall was being demolished, the wall toppled and fractured Murillo's left leg.
- Bautista personally directed that Murillo be taken to the North General Hospital and later to the National Orthopedic Hospital and paid the incidental expenses.
Procedural History
- Gerardo Murillo filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission against Francisco Bautista.
- The claim was controverted by the employer on the ground that the work was done on the employer's residential building and that the claimant was not an employee within the statute.
- The referee found for the claimant and awarded compensation in the amount of P699.56 plus P7.00 to the Commission under Section 55 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- The employer sought review and the Commission affirmed the referee's decision in toto.
- The employer appealed for judicial review to this Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether a person engaged in purely casual employment is excluded from the definition of "laborer" under Section 39 (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- Whether the services rendered by Murillo were performed for the purposes of the employer's