Afable v. Singer Sewing Machine
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leopoldo Madlangbayan, a collector for Singer Sewing Machine Company residing outside Manila, was fatally injured when a truck ran him over while he was riding a bicycle. Madlangbayan had moved to Manila without notifying the company and was returning home after making collections in San Francisco del Monte. The driver of the truck, Vitaliano Sumoay, was convicted of homicide through reckless negligence and ordered to indemnify the heirs. Procedural History: The widow and children of Leopoldo Madlangbayan filed an action against Singer Sewing Machine Company to recover compensation under Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812, for burial expenses and compensation. The complaint was amended, seeking recovery under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. 3428. The defendant denied the allegations and raised special defenses, including that the plaintiffs had already obtained a judgment against the truck driver, that Madlangbayan was violating an ordinance prohibiting work on Sunday, and that Act No. 3428, as amended, was unconstitutional. The Petition: The plaintiffs-appellants appealed the dismissal of their complaint by the Court of First Instance, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the proven facts fell outside the provisions of Act No. 3428, as amended, in dismissing the case, and in not granting the compensation claimed.
Issue(s)
Whether the accident that caused the death of Leopoldo Madlangbayan arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant corporation under Act No. 3428, as amended. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the complaint. The accident was held not to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment: The Court held that the accident which caused the death of Leopoldo Madlangbayan was not due to and in pursuance of his employment. At the time of the accident, Madlangbayan was not in the pursuance of his employment with the defendant corporation but was on his way home after finishing his work for the day and leaving the authorized territory for collections. The Court emphasized that an employer is not an insurer against all accidental injuries that might happen to an employee while in the course of employment. Generally, an employee is not entitled to recover for personal injuries resulting from an accident that befalls them while going to or returning from their place of employment, as such an accident does not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Court cited the distinction between the phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" in Act No. 3428 and "arising out of and in the course of" in Act No. 3812, explaining that "arising out of" refers to the origin or cause of the accident, while "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances. The Court further noted that the employer is not liable for injuries arising from risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment. In this case, Madlangbayan was using his own conveyance (a bicycle) and had moved his residence without notifying the company, which were additional reasons to hold that the accident was not due to and in pursuance of his employment. The company did not require employees to work on Sundays or furnish bicycles, meaning Madlangbayan undertook these actions at his own risk. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint: Since the Court found that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation under Act No. 3428. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint by the trial court was proper.
Main Doctrine
An employer is not liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries sustained by an employee while going to or returning from their place of employment, as such an accident does not arise out of and in the course of employment, unless the employee's presence on the route is necessitated by the employment itself or the route is part of the employer's premises or under their control.