Amedo v. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Elena Amedo sought to collect compensation from defendant Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc. for the death of her son, Filomeno Managuit, a seaman on the M/S Pilar II. The original complaint alleged that Managuit jumped into the water to retrieve a 2-peso bill and drowned. Procedural History: The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the motion, and this Court affirmed, but allowed the filing of an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged the 2-peso bill was blown into the sea and Managuit jumped to retrieve it while performing his duties. The amended complaint was also dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The Petition: Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the amended complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of Filomeno Managuit was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Whether the death was caused by the "notorious negligence" of the employee.
Ruling
The decision appealed from is affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the death was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment: The Court held that while the death occurred "in the course of" employment, as it happened at the time and place of work, it did not "arise out of" the employment. The blowing of the 2-peso bill may have arisen from the employment, but the death was a consequence of the employee's decision to jump into the water to retrieve it. This act exposed him to a risk not peculiar to or incidental to his employment, but one to which any person on board would have been exposed. Therefore, the accident did not originate from the employment. On whether the death was caused by the "notorious negligence" of the employee: The Court found that the employee's act of jumping into the sea, one and a half miles from shore, constituted "notorious negligence," which is tantamount to gross negligence. This was defined as the want of even slight care and diligence, or a reckless disregard of safety. The Court cited several cases where employees were found guilty of gross negligence for actions that exposed them to obvious danger. The act of jumping into the sea to retrieve a small sum of money was deemed a clear, potent, and obvious danger, far more apparent than the dangers in the cited cases. Thus, the death was caused by his notorious negligence, which bars compensation under Section 4 of Act No. 3428.
Main Doctrine
An employer is not liable for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act if the employee's death, though occurring in the course of employment, was not caused by an accident arising out of the employment, or was caused by the employee's notorious negligence.