GR L 18995; (December, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-18995-96 December 29, 1962
AGUEDO DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, ETC., ET AL., EUGENIO DRILON and LUCIA DELORITOS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Aguedo del Rosario engaged ten men, including respondents Eugenio Drilon and the now deceased Francisco Digdigan, for excavation work on his fishpond in Iloilo on a piece-work (“pakiao”) basis. The workers provided their own tools and food. On January 7, 1958, they were transported by del Rosario’s truck to the worksite. After a day’s work, the group ate dinner consisting of rice brought by Drilon and fish caught from the fishpond. Subsequently, all fell ill; Drilon and Digdigan suffered severe convulsions. Digdigan died the next day, and Drilon recovered. Separate compensation claims were filed by Drilon and by Digdigan’s mother, Lucia Deloritos.
The hearing officer of Regional Office No. V of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dismissed both claims. On the claimants’ appeal, the Commission en banc set aside this dismissal and ordered the entry of a new decision awarding compensation. The Commission rejected del Rosario’s argument that the workers were not his employees but those of an alleged independent contractor. Del Rosario’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Aguedo del Rosario and the workers, making him liable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the injury and death that occurred.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order, holding that an employer-employee relationship did exist and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Court upheld the Commission’s finding that petitioner was estopped from disputing the employment relationship, as he did not appeal the hearing officer’s initial decision which contained that finding. On the merits, the Court ruled that the “pakiao” arrangement did not negate employment. The alleged contractor, Rufo Dimavildo, lacked independent capital and acted more as a foreman or agent of del Rosario, herding workers for him. The excavation and repair of dikes were necessary and routine for del Rosario’s fishpond business, making the work integral to his trade, not “purely casual” as defined by law.
Furthermore, the accident, occurring during dinner on the premises after a workday, arose in the course of employment. The Court cited the “personal comfort” doctrine, stating that acts ministering to personal comfort, like eating, within the time and space limits of employment do not take an employee out of the course of employment unless there is a clear abandonment of duty. The workers, having been brought to a remote worksite, were effectively required to eat there. Therefore, the resulting illness and death from the meal were compensable, as the risk was incidental to the conditions of their employment. The order awarding compensation was affirmed.