GR 44352; (March, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44352; March 28, 1936
MOISES ROLAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIO PEREZ (alias ABOODY PEREZ), defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Moises Rolan, was a laborer employed directly by the defendant, Antonio Perez, at the La Loma Dairy Farm. His duties included fixing barbed wire fences, weeding, and cutting tree branches to provide shade for the cows. In April 1934, while cutting an acacia tree branch during a storm, the branch fell onto an electric wire, energizing the barbed wire fence and tree. Rolan received an electric shock, fell from a height, and suffered permanent injuries, including a 25% loss of use of his right leg. The defendant paid all medical expenses. Rolan filed an action to recover compensation for permanent partial disability under Act No. 3428, as amended (Workmen’s Compensation Act). The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, ruling that Rolan was a “servant” and not a “laborer” covered by the Act, and that he failed to prove the defendant’s gross income met the statutory threshold.
ISSUE
1. Whether the plaintiff was a “laborer” or “employee” covered by Act No. 3428, as amended.
2. Whether the plaintiff had the burden to allege and prove that the employer’s gross income was not less than P20,000 to fall under the Act.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was a “laborer” or “employee” as defined in the Act. His work, though not directly involving milking cows, was for the benefit and maintenance of the dairy farm and was integral to the business. The accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.
2. No. The Court ruled that the amendment by Act No. 3812 removed the requirement for the employee to allege and prove the employer’s gross income was at least P40,000 (later reduced to P20,000 by another provision). The gross income threshold became an affirmative defense available to the employer. The burden was on the defendant to prove his gross income was less than P20,000 to invoke the provisions of the more restrictive Act No. 1874. Since the defendant presented no such evidence, the plaintiff’s action was proper under Act No. 3428, as amended.
The appealed judgment was reversed. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff P155.57 as compensation, with legal interest and costs.
AI Generated by Armztrong.