MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC v WCC (1956)
[G.R. No. L-8110. June 30, 1956.] MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR and GERONIMO MA. COLL, Respondents.
FACTS:
On August 23, 1951, at 6:00 a.m. in Bo. Sumangga, Mogpog, Marinduque, the deceased Mamador together with other laborers of the Respondent-corporation, (Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc.) boarded a truck belonging to the latter, which was then driven by one Procopio Macunat, also employed by the corporation, and on its way to their place of work at the mine camp at Talantunan, while trying to overtake another truck on the company road, it turned over and hit a coconut tree, resulting in the death of said Mamador and injury to the others.”
Procopio Macunat was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. (Criminal Case No. 1491). He has paid nothing however, to the latter.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner: confirmed the referee’s award of compensation to the heirs of Pedro Mamador for his accidental death.
ISSUE:
What is the effect of the deceased’s having violated the employer’s prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks
RULING:
No.
There is no doubt that mere riding on haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. It couldn’t be, because
[G.R. No. L-8110. June 30, 1956.] MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR and GERONIMO MA. COLL, Respondents.
FACTS:
On August 23, 1951, at 6:00 a.m. in Bo. Sumangga, Mogpog, Marinduque, the deceased Mamador together with other laborers of the Respondent-corporation, (Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc.) boarded a truck belonging to the latter, which was then driven by one Procopio Macunat, also employed by the corporation, and on its way to their place of work at the mine camp at Talantunan, while trying to overtake another truck on the company road, it turned over and hit a coconut tree, resulting in the death of said Mamador and injury to the others.”
Procopio Macunat was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. (Criminal Case No. 1491). He has paid nothing however, to the latter.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner: confirmed the referee’s award of compensation to the heirs of Pedro Mamador for his accidental death.
ISSUE:
What is the effect of the deceased’s having violated the employer’s prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks
RULING:
No.
There is no doubt that mere riding on haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. It couldn’t be, because
transportation by truck is not dangerous per se. It is argued that there was notorious negligence in this particular instance because
there was the employer’s prohibition.
However there is practical unanimity in the proposition that violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence. Section 6 provides as follows:
“Sec. 6. Liability of third parties. — In case an employee suffers an injury for which compensation is due under this Act by any other person besides his employer, it shall be optional with such injured employee either to claim compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person for damages, in accordance with law; and in case compensation is claimed and allowed in accordance with this Act, the employer who paid such compensation or was found liable to pay the same, shall succeed the injured employee to the right of recovering from such person what he paid: Provided, That in case the employer recovers from such third person damages in excess of those paid or allowed under this Act, such excess shall be delivered to the injured employee or any other person entitled thereto, after deduction of the expenses of the employer and the costs of the proceedings. The sum paid by the employer for compensation or the amount of compensation to which the employee or his dependents are entitled, shall not be admissible as evidence in any damage suit or action.”
It is the Petitioner’s contention that Criminal Case No. 1491 and its outcome constituted an election by the employee (or his heirs) to sue the third person, such election having the effect of releasing the employer. However, Criminal Case No. 1491 was not a suit for damages against the third person, it being alleged, without contradiction that the heirs did not intervene therein and have not so far received the indemnity ordered by the court.
Indemnity granted the heirs in a criminal prosecution of the “other person” does not affect the liability of the employer to pay compensation.
As to the alleged “amicable settlement,” it consists of an affidavit wherein, for the sum of 150 pesos, Mamador’s widow promised “to forgive Macunat for the wrong committed and not to bring him before the authorities for prosecution.” Upon making such promise — Petitioner argues — she elected one of the remedies, (against the third person) and is barred from the other remedy (against the employer). The contention may not be sustained, inasmuch as all the widow promised was to forego the offender’s criminal prosecution. Note further that a question may be raised whether she could bind the other heirs of the deceased.
However there is practical unanimity in the proposition that violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence. Section 6 provides as follows:
“Sec. 6. Liability of third parties. — In case an employee suffers an injury for which compensation is due under this Act by any other person besides his employer, it shall be optional with such injured employee either to claim compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person for damages, in accordance with law; and in case compensation is claimed and allowed in accordance with this Act, the employer who paid such compensation or was found liable to pay the same, shall succeed the injured employee to the right of recovering from such person what he paid: Provided, That in case the employer recovers from such third person damages in excess of those paid or allowed under this Act, such excess shall be delivered to the injured employee or any other person entitled thereto, after deduction of the expenses of the employer and the costs of the proceedings. The sum paid by the employer for compensation or the amount of compensation to which the employee or his dependents are entitled, shall not be admissible as evidence in any damage suit or action.”
It is the Petitioner’s contention that Criminal Case No. 1491 and its outcome constituted an election by the employee (or his heirs) to sue the third person, such election having the effect of releasing the employer. However, Criminal Case No. 1491 was not a suit for damages against the third person, it being alleged, without contradiction that the heirs did not intervene therein and have not so far received the indemnity ordered by the court.
Indemnity granted the heirs in a criminal prosecution of the “other person” does not affect the liability of the employer to pay compensation.
As to the alleged “amicable settlement,” it consists of an affidavit wherein, for the sum of 150 pesos, Mamador’s widow promised “to forgive Macunat for the wrong committed and not to bring him before the authorities for prosecution.” Upon making such promise — Petitioner argues — she elected one of the remedies, (against the third person) and is barred from the other remedy (against the employer). The contention may not be sustained, inasmuch as all the widow promised was to forego the offender’s criminal prosecution. Note further that a question may be raised whether she could bind the other heirs of the deceased.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment