GR L 8017; (April, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8017; April 30, 1955
FEDERICO MANSAL, plaintiff, vs. P.P. GO-CHECO LUMBER CO., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Federico Mansal suffered injuries to his middle finger while stacking lumber in the defendant-appellee’s lumber yard. He was part of a group of laborers who performed this work under a contractor named Pablo Manansala. Manansala contracted with the defendant company to stack lumber at a rate of P4.00 per thousand board feet, collected the payment, and distributed it among the laborers. The group did not work exclusively for the defendant and also performed similar work for other lumber yards. The defendant company was not obligated to hire Manansala’s group every time and could engage other contractors. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that Mansal was a purely casual laborer employed by an independent contractor (Manansala), over whom the defendant exercised no control or authority.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, working under a contractor, is a “purely casual” laborer excluded from coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, thereby absolving the defendant-appellee from liability for the injuries sustained.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant was not a purely casual laborer and his work was for the purposes of the defendant’s business. The term “purely casual” under the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires that the employment be both occasional and not for the purposes of the employer’s occupation or business. Stacking and sorting lumber is an ordinary and integral part of the operations of a lumber yard, directly connected to its business of handling and selling lumber. The fact that the plaintiff worked under a contractor (pakiao system) who paid him and that the work was not continuous does not make him an independent contractor or his employment purely casual. The contractor, for purposes of the law, was an agent of the defendant. The defendant-employer is therefore liable for compensation. The plaintiff is entitled to 60% of his average weekly wages (P36.00) for the period of incapacity, amounting to P321.43. The defendant-appellee was ordered to pay this sum.