Compania Maritima v. Hio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Compañia Maritima (petitioner) engaged the services of Pablo Velez Special Watchmen's Agency to provide security during a strike. Dionisio Hio, a watchman supplied by the agency, was assigned as gangwayman on petitioner's vessel, M/V BASILAN. On September 4, 1954, Hio and others escorted the Chief Engineer home, where they partook in drinking liquor. They returned to their posts around 2:00 a.m. on September 5, 1954. Later that morning, Hio's body was found floating near the side of the M/V BASILAN, along the gangway where he was assigned. Procedural History: The widow of Dionisio Hio filed a claim for compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Commission found that Hio died of an accident in the course of his employment and declared Compañia Maritima as the employer, ordering it to pay death compensation, burial expenses, and fees. The Petition: Compañia Maritima appealed, questioning whether the deceased was its employee entitled to compensation and whether the deceased was intoxicated while performing his duty.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the deceased was an employee of the Compañia Maritima, entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether or not the deceased was intoxicated while performing his duty as watchman at the time of his death.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is affirmed. Compañia Maritima is ordered to pay the survivors the sum of P4,000.00 as death compensation, P200.00 as reimbursement for burial expenses, and P41.00 as fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the deceased was an employee of the Compañia Maritima, entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act: The Court held that an employer-employee relationship existed. Despite the absence of a written contract, the fact that the petitioner owned the vessel where the deceased was assigned and that the deceased's salary was paid directly from the petitioner's funds established the employment. The Court further clarified that the deceased's employment was not purely casual, as the services of watchmen were necessary for the petitioner's maritime business, even outside the period of the strike. The Court cited the definition of 'laborer' under Section 39(b) of the Act, emphasizing that casual employment must not be for the purpose of the employer's occupation or business, which was not the case here. The work of the deceased was directly connected with the petitioner's business of shipping, as security is indispensable for its operations. On whether the deceased was intoxicated while performing his duty as watchman at the time of his death: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's defense of intoxication. The Commission noted contradictions in the testimony of witnesses regarding the deceased's activities after drinking. Furthermore, the widow's testimony, the autopsy report, and the testimony of Dr. Cabreira indicated no signs of alcohol in the deceased's body. The Court cited authority stating that in cases of conflicting testimony on intoxication, it is not error to fail to find intoxication, especially when the accident is found to have arisen out of employment. The burden of proving intoxication and that it caused the injury rests on the employer, and such proof must be clear and convincing, showing that the intoxication rendered the employee incapable of performing his work. The petitioner failed to adduce such evidence, and even failed to present its Chief Engineer, who could have corroborated the defense of drunkenness.
Main Doctrine
The employer bears the burden of proving intoxication and that it caused the injury. Failure to adduce clear and convincing proof of intoxication, and that it rendered the employee incapable of performing his work, does not excuse the employer from liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act.