G.R. No. L-10107; February 4, 1916
CLARA CEREZO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Clara Cerezo filed an action for damages against The Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company for the death of her son, Jorge Ocumen, who was a day laborer employed by the defendant. On July 7, 1913, while working on a project laying gas pipes on Calle Herran in Manila, Ocumen entered an unused, open section of the trench (approximately 3 to 4 feet deep) to answer a call of nature. The trench wall caved in, burying him and causing his death by suffocation. At the time of the accident, Ocumen’s assigned work was at the opposite (west) end of the trench, where his gang was refilling it. The trench at the east end, where the cave-in occurred, was completed and only awaited connection of pipes before refilling. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to shore or brace the trench. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
Was the Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company negligent and therefore liable under the law for the death of Jorge Ocumen?

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the complaint.

The Court analyzed the potential bases for liability, examining both the Employers’ Liability Act ( Act No. 1874 ) and the Civil Code. It determined that the accident did not fall within the scope of the Employers’ Liability Act, as the deceased was not injured “by reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant” connected with his employment. At the time of the accident, Ocumen was not performing his duties but was attending to a personal need in a part of the trench where no work was being conducted. He was, therefore, outside the scope of his employment, and the defendant owed him no duty under the Act except to refrain from willful injury.

Under the Civil Code, liability is based on fault or negligence (Article 1902). The Court found the defendant was not negligent. The duty of an employer is to provide a reasonably safe place to work and to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family (Article 1903). The evidence showed the trench was not inherently dangerous: it was relatively shallow, had been open for a week without incident, and the soil showed no obvious signs of instability. Expert testimony indicated that shoring was only used for deep trenches or unstable ground. The cave-in was an unusual event, and Ocumen’s specific posture (squatting) contributed to the fatal suffocation. The Court held that the accident was an event that could not have been foreseen (Article 1105). Requiring shoring for all such trenches would be an unreasonable burden. Consequently, the defendant exercised the required diligence and was not liable.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Araullo, JJ., concurred.
Carson, J., dissented.