G.R. No. L-20484, November 28, 1964
VIDAL PAULINO, petitioner, vs. ADELAIDA ROSENDO and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Adelaida Rosendo filed a claim for death compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act following the killing of her husband, Vicente Nieto. The claim was filed in Regional Office No. 3 against Amado de la Cruz, Anastaquio Manuel, and Vidal Paulino (petitioner). Only Paulino filed an answer, leading to the default of de la Cruz and Manuel. The Regional Office found that prior to February 1960, the three respondents had engaged in a joint venture to buy watermelons in Pangasinan and sell them wholesale in Manila, each contributing ₱1,000. They used a 6×6 cargo truck for transport. In February 1960, they went to Nieto’s house in Guiguinto, Bulacan, and hired him as a guard for their watermelon operations in Bayambang, Pangasinan, at a rate of ₱2.50 per day and ₱5.00 per night. Nieto began work on February 25, 1960. On the night of March 28, 1960, while guarding watermelons at Hacienda Roa, Mangabol, Bayambang, Pangasinan, Nieto was shot and killed by robbers. A confidential report from the 121st PC Company (Exhibit “C”) confirmed the robbery and killing, with three robbers later apprehended. Based on these findings, the Regional Office awarded Rosendo ₱4,000 as death compensation and ₱200 as burial expenses, holding the three respondents jointly and severally liable.
Paulino sought reconsideration, which was denied, and the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Both an Associate Commissioner and the Commission en banc affirmed the Regional Office’s decision, adding ₱5 as a review fee and ₱300 as attorney’s fees. Paulino then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s business, with capital less than ₱10,000, is covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether there is substantial evidence to prove that Vicente Nieto was an employee and not a business partner.
3. Whether the killing of Nieto arose out of and in the course of employment, making it compensable.
4. Whether the computation of death benefits was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, holding the claim compensable.
1. On Coverage Under the Act: The Court upheld the Commission’s finding that the business was hazardous and thus covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, despite having capital below ₱10,000. Under Section 42 of the Act, enterprises with capital less than ₱10,000 are generally governed by other laws unless they are hazardous. The Commission correctly classified the venture as hazardous because it involved the regular use of a cargo truck for transporting goods (watermelons), which falls under the category of “any business for the transportation of persons or goods” listed as hazardous in the law. The use of the truck was integral to the joint venture’s operations, making the enterprise subject to the Act.
2. On Employer-Employee Relationship: The Court rejected petitioner’s claim that Nieto was a partner (“socio-industrial”) rather than an employee. It emphasized that the Workmen’s Compensation Act establishes a presumption under Section 44 that a claim falls within its provisions in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. Here, the Regional Office and Commission found Rosendo’s testimony credible regarding the hiring of Nieto as a guard. Petitioner’s challenges to Rosendo’s credibility—such as her possibly missing part of the conversation and her misidentification of Paulino at the hearing—were insufficient to overturn the factual findings. The Commission’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded respect, and petitioner’s evidence failed to constitute the “substantial evidence” needed to rebut the statutory presumption.
3. On Compensability of the Death: The Court ruled that Nieto’s death arose out of and in the course of employment, making it compensable. Following established jurisprudence, when an injury or death occurs in the course of employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of that employment. Nieto was killed while performing his duty as a guard for the watermelon shipment, directly in the course of his work. Petitioner’s argument that the motive might not have been robbery and that Nieto’s presence did not expose him to a special risk was unavailing. The PC report indicated robbery as the context, and the guard duty inherently involved a risk of violence from criminal acts aimed at the property he was protecting. The presumption under Section 44 that the injury was not due to the employee’s willful intent further supported compensability.
4. On Computation of Benefits: The Court found the computation of death benefits proper. Under Section 8(a) of the Act, a dependent widow is entitled to 45% of the average weekly wages of the deceased. Section 19 provides methods for computing average weekly wages when, due to shortness of employment, it is impracticable to base it on the employee’s actual earnings. Here, the Commission reasonably applied these provisions to arrive at the ₱4,000 death benefit, which was within the statutory framework. The additional awards for burial expenses (₱200) and attorney’s fees (₱300) were also upheld as legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation designed to provide relief to workers and their dependents. Its provisions, including the presumptions in favor of compensability (Section 44), must be liberally construed to achieve its humanitarian purpose. Factual findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, especially on employer-employee relationships and the hazardous nature of an enterprise, are binding if supported by evidence. The use of a cargo truck for transporting goods categorizes a business as hazardous under the Act, regardless of capital size. An injury or death occurring in the course of employment is presumed compensable, and the burden to rebut this presumption lies with the employer.