Rolan v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Moises Rolan was employed as a laborer by defendant Antonio Perez at the La Loma Dairy Farm. Rolan's duties included fixing barbed wire fences, weeding, and cutting branches of trees on the farm. While cutting a branch of an acacia tree on the farm's border during a strong wind and heavy rain, the branch fell on an electric wire, causing it to break and energize the barbed wire fence. Rolan, who was on the tree, received an electric shock, fell about six meters, and sustained injuries, including a 25% loss of use of his right leg and foot. The defendant defrayed all hospital and medical expenses. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed an action to recover P155.57 as compensation for his permanent partial injury. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the complaint, ruling that Rolan was a servant, not a laborer, and thus not covered by Act No. 3428, as amended. The Appeal: The plaintiff appealed the dismissal, assigning as error the court's classification of his employment status and its ruling on the gross income requirement. The plaintiff argued that he was a laborer and that the court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prove the defendant's gross income, contending that this was a defense the defendant should have proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, who performed various tasks on a dairy farm including fence repair and tree trimming, qualifies as a "laborer" under Act No. 3428 (Workmen's Compensation Act). Whether the plaintiff was required to prove that the defendant's gross income for the preceding year was not less than P20,000, or if the burden of proof rested on the defendant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that Moises Rolan was a laborer under Act No. 3428 and that the defendant was liable for compensation. The Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff P155.57 with legal interest and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Moises Rolan was indeed a "laborer" as defined by Act No. 3428, as amended. The definition of "laborer" is synonymous with "employee" and includes every person who has entered into the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. Rolan worked under a verbal contract with the defendant, directly employed by him. His tasks, such as fixing fences and trimming trees, were for the benefit and care of the cows in the dairy farm, thus directly related to the employer's business and occurring in the course of his employment. It was not necessary for him to be directly involved in milking the cows to be considered a laborer. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the plaintiff was not required to allege and prove that the defendant's gross income for the preceding year was not less than P20,000. The omission of the gross income requirement in the amended subsection (d) of Section 39 of Act No. 3428 meant that this necessity ceased upon the amendment's effectivity. While Section 42, as amended, provides that claims may be governed by Act No. 1874 if the gross income is less than P20,000, this provision introduces a defense favorable to the employer. Therefore, the burden of alleging and proving this fact rests upon the defendant, not the plaintiff. Since the defendant presented no evidence, the plaintiff's action was not prejudiced by the rejection of Exhibit E.
Main Doctrine
A worker employed in tasks that directly benefit the operation and care of a dairy farm, such as maintaining fences and clearing land for the cows' welfare, is considered a 'laborer' under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Furthermore, the burden of proving that the employer's gross income was less than P20,000 rests upon the employer as an affirmative defense, not on the employee to disprove.