G.R. No. L-6968 November 29, 1954
PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA SANTOS VDA. DE GERONIMO, and REYNALDO GERONIMO, the latter being presented by the former in these proceedings, and ELIANO GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

On November 22, 1952, Arcadio Geronimo, a laborer, died as a result of a fall while painting an elevated water tank owned by petitioner Philippine Manufacturing Company. The accident was reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission by the deceased’s immediate employer, respondent Eliano Garcia, who had contracted to paint the tank for a stipulated price. While compensation for the death was due, a controversy arose as to whether it was recoverable from Philippine Manufacturing Company or from Garcia as an independent contractor. The referee and, upon review, the Acting Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, ordered the company to pay. The company then filed a petition for certiorari. The parties stipulated, among other facts, that the company was engaged in manufacturing soap, vegetable lard, cooking oil, and margarine; that it engaged Garcia to paint the tank according to specifications and price in a purchase order (Annex “A”); that Garcia used to engage in painting contracts and hired the deceased; that the actual supervision of the work was taken care of by Garcia; and that the deceased received a daily wage of P5.00. Annex “A” required Garcia to supply labor, equipment, and tools, comply with laws, and be responsible for indemnity claims.

ISSUE

Who was the statutory employer of the deceased laborer for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act—Eliano Garcia, the painting contractor who hired him, or Philippine Manufacturing Company, for whom the painting job was to be done?

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and ruled that Eliano Garcia, as the independent contractor, was the statutory employer liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The Court held that Garcia was an independent contractor because, under the contract, he was free to do the painting job according to his own method and supervised the work himself, without being subject to the company’s control except as to the result. The company’s business was manufacturing soap and related products, not painting; thus, the deceased’s employment was not for the purpose of the company’s usual business. Following the precedent in De los Santos vs. Javier, the Court stated that the owner of a factory is considered the employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act only for laborers engaged in carrying on the usual business of the factory, not for those of an independent contractor doing work separate from that usual business. Since Garcia waived the presentation of evidence to show his capital was less than P10,000 (which would exempt him under the Act), the presumption that the claim comes within the Act’s provisions applied. Therefore, Garcia was ordered to pay the compensation due, with costs against him.