G.R. No. L-45696; April 3, 1939
PLACIDA PASCASIO and FELICIDAD KINILAT GASPAR, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BENITO GUIDO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Placida Pascasio and Felicidad Kinilat Gaspar, the mother and minor daughter of the deceased Angeles Gaspar, filed a complaint against defendant Benito Guido. They alleged that Angeles Gaspar was employed as the manager of the defendant’s hacienda in Angono, Rizal, with a monthly salary. On April 8, 1936, he was murdered by Perfecto Picones, the former hacienda manager, allegedly out of hatred for being replaced by the deceased. The plaintiffs sought compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Act No. 3428 , as amended). The defendant filed a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. For the Workmen’s Compensation Act to apply, two essential conditions must be met: (1) the employee must be an industrial employee as defined by the Act, and (2) the death or injury must result from an illness or accident arising from, or in the course of, employment. The complaint failed on both counts. First, the deceased, as a hacienda manager, was engaged in agriculture, which is expressly excluded from the definition of industrial employment under the Act. Second, his murder was not an accident arising from his work; it was a deliberate criminal act motivated by personal vengeance unrelated to the performance of his duties. Since no cause of action existed under the Act, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the issue of prescription.

AI Generated by Armztrong.