G.R. No. L-16298; September 29, 1962
ESTEBAN CUAJAO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHUA LO TAN, ET AL., defendants, CHUA LO TAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Esteban Cuajao was employed as the family driver of defendant Chua Lo Tan from August 1951 to November 1956, earning a daily wage of P5.00. During his employment, Cuajao was hospitalized for a total of 35 days across 1951, 1952, and 1953, incurring expenses amounting to P435.80. He also did not take any vacation leave throughout his six-year service. He filed a complaint to recover these hospitalization expenses and the monetary equivalent of his accrued vacation leave, computed at 316 days worth P1,580.00 based on Article 1695 of the Civil Code.
The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision dismissing the claim for vacation leave pay but ordering Chua Lo Tan to pay the P435.80 in hospitalization expenses. Both parties appealed: Cuajao contested the denial of his leave pay, while Chua Lo Tan assailed the award for medical expenses.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether Cuajao’s right to claim payment for accrued vacation leave had been waived; and (2) Whether the statutory right to “medical attendance” for a house helper under Article 1689 of the Civil Code includes the right to reimbursement for hospitalization expenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the vacation leave pay claim and reversed the award for hospitalization expenses, thus modifying the lower court’s decision.
On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding that Cuajao had waived his right to vacation leave pay. Citing precedent (Sun Ripe Coconut Products, Inc. vs. National Labor Union), the Court ruled that the purpose of vacation leave is to provide necessary rest, not merely additional salary. This right must be demanded seasonably. The trial court correctly gave credence to Chua Lo Tan’s testimony that no such demand was made, a factual finding the Supreme Court could not review as Cuajao’s appeal was based purely on questions of law. His continued service for six years without pressing the claim constituted a waiver, converting the right into a mere concession by the employer.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Cuajao failed to substantiate his claim for hospitalization expenses. The Court declined to rule in the abstract on whether “medical attendance” under Article 1689 includes “hospitalization expenses,” stating the determination must depend on the circumstances of each case. Here, Cuajao merely presented hospital bills without providing any evidence—expert or otherwise—on the necessity of his hospital confinement. Crucially, he also failed to prove that he notified Chua Lo Tan of his illness or hospitalization beforehand, depriving the employer of any say in the choice of physician or hospital, which the Court deemed a matter of basic fairness except in extreme urgency. For these reasons, the award for hospitalization expenses was set aside.