Paulino v. Rosendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Adelaida Rosendo filed a claim for workmen's compensation for the death of her husband, Vicente Nieto, against Amado de la Cruz, Anastaquio Manuel, and Vidal Paulino (petitioner). The deceased was allegedly hired as a guard for a joint venture of buying and selling watermelons. While guarding watermelons in Hacienda Roa, Bayambang, Pangasinan, Nieto was shot and killed by robbers. Three robbers were apprehended and confessed to the killing. Procedural History: Only Vidal Paulino filed an answer; de la Cruz and Manuel were declared in default. Regional Office No. 3 awarded P4,000.00 as death compensation and P200.00 as burial expenses to respondent Rosendo. The Regional Office denied reconsideration and elevated the case to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC). The Petition: The WCC affirmed the award, ordering the respondents to pay the compensation, plus fees and attorney's fees. Petitioner Vidal Paulino appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several contentions.
Issue(s)
Whether the business of buying and selling watermelons, involving the use of a cargo truck, is considered hazardous under the Workmen's Compensation Act, despite a capital of less than P10,000.00. Whether Vicente Nieto was an employee (guard) or a business partner. Whether there was substantial evidence that the motive for Nieto's killing was robbery. Whether the computation of death benefits was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, holding that the business was hazardous and covered by the Act, and that the award was legal and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the hazardous nature of the business: The Court reiterated that for an enterprise to be exempted from the Workmen's Compensation Act due to low capitalization (less than P10,000.00), it must both have a capital of less than P10,000.00 and be non-hazardous. The regular use of a cargo truck for transporting goods, as in this case, renders the business hazardous, aligning with jurisprudence that the use of motor vehicles in business operations creates inherent risks. Therefore, the business falls under the coverage of the Act, regardless of its capital. On whether Nieto was an employee or partner: The Court invoked the presumption under Section 44 of the Act, which states that in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, a claim for compensation is presumed to come within the provisions of the Act. The Court noted that while petitioner questioned the credibility of respondent Rosendo's testimony regarding the hiring, the presumption of employment and compensability applies unless overcome by substantial evidence. The Court also cited previous rulings that where death occurs in the course of employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of the employment. On the motive for the killing: The Court did not directly address the petitioner's argument about the motive being robbery, but the affirmation of the award implies that the death was considered to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, which is compensable under the Act. The Act presumes that the injury was not occasioned by the wilful intention of the employee to bring about his own death or that of another, unless substantial evidence proves otherwise. On the computation of death benefits: The Court referred to Sections 8(a) and 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 8(a) provides that a dependent widow without dependent children is entitled to 45% of the deceased's average weekly wage. Section 19 outlines the computation of average weekly wages. The Commission's computation, based on the deceased's average weekly wage of P52.50 and applying the 45% rate for 208 weeks, capped at the maximum allowed by the Act (P4,000.00), was deemed proper under the law.
Main Doctrine
A business capitalized at less than P10,000.00 is covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act if it is deemed hazardous, such as one involving the regular use of a cargo truck for transportation of goods.