G.R. No. L-10675; April 29, 1960
COMPANIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. ERNESTA CABAGNOT VDA. DE HIO, for herself and as Guardian-ad-litem of her minor children, DIONISIO, JR., ERNESTO, RAUL, and ESTER, all surnamed HIO, and PABLO VELEZ WATCHMEN’S AGENCY, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Compañia Maritima, is a domestic corporation engaged in interisland trade. The respondent Pablo Velez Special Watchmen’s Agency (owned by Pablo Velez) supplied watchmen from the Manila Bay Watchmen’s Association to shipping companies. In August 1954, due to a strike by the Marine Officer’s Guild, petitioner contracted with the Agency for security services. Among the watchmen assigned was Dionisio Hio. On September 4, 1954, Hio was on night duty as a gangwayman on petitioner’s vessel M/V BASILAN. That evening, the vessel’s Chief Engineer had Hio and others escort him home, where he offered them drinks. After having several rounds, the watchmen returned to their posts around 2:00 a.m. on September 5. At about 6:00 a.m., Hio’s body was found floating near the M/V BASILAN’s gangway, where he was assigned. He was survived by his dependent wife and minor children. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission found Hio died in an accident arising from his employment, declared Compañia Maritima his employer, and ordered it to pay death compensation, burial expenses, and fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the deceased Dionisio Hio was an employee of Compañia Maritima entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether the deceased was intoxicated while performing his duty at the time of his death.

RULING

1. Yes, the deceased was an employee of Compañia Maritima. Although no written contract was presented, it was undisputed that petitioner owned the vessel where Hio was assigned, and the Commission found his salary was paid directly from petitioner’s funds. These circumstances established an employer-employee relationship at the time of the accident. Petitioner’s claim that Hio was a casual employee excluded under the Act was without merit. Under Section 39(b) of the Act, exclusion requires employment that is “purely casual and is not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer.” Hio’s work as a watchman providing security to the vessel’s officers and cargo was directly related to and necessary for petitioner’s maritime business, as petitioner itself admitted to having permanently employed watchmen for the same duties. Therefore, his employment was not purely casual.
2. No, the deceased was not proven to be intoxicated at the time of his death. The defense of intoxication was not established by clear and convincing proof. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission noted serious contradictions in the testimony of the Agency’s witnesses regarding the events after the drinking. Furthermore, the claimant widow testified Hio never got drunk on duty, and the autopsy report and testimony of a police doctor indicated no signs of alcohol in his body. The burden of proving intoxication and that it caused the injury rests on the employer. Petitioner failed to present key witnesses, like the Chief Engineer, to substantiate its claim. Since the evidence did not show that intoxication rendered Hio incapable of his work or that the accident arose from his drunken condition rather than his employment, the defense fails.
The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is affirmed.