Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45696 April 3, 1939
PLACIDA PASCASIO and FELICIDAD KINILAT GASPAR, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
BENITO GUIDO, defendant-appellee.
Gregorio C. Concepcion and Crispin Oben for appellants.
Antonio Gonzalez for appellee.
DIAZ, J.:
This is a case appealed from the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The main question before us is whether or not the appellant's complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The lower court held that it did not, and, in consequence, sustained the demurrer interposed by the defendant to the complaint. As the plaintiffs did not amend their complaint, the court dismissed the case. From this dismissal the plaintiffs appeal alleging that the lower court committed three errors, namely:
1. In holding as a necessary inference that the deceased Angeles Gaspar was not an industrial employee of the defendant;
2. In likewise holding that the death of the deceased was not due to any accident arising from his employment; and
3. In holding that the plaintiffs' action had already long prescribed when they filed their complaint.
The pertinent facts alleged in the complaint are those appearing in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, which read as follows:
2. That the plaintiffs were mother and daughter respectively of the deceased Angeles Gaspar and depended entirely for subsistence on the deceased when he was living, that his mother Placida Pascasio is a widow and his daughter Felicidad Kinilat Gaspar is less than eight years old.
3. That on or about March 28, 1936, Angeles Gaspar entered the defendant's employ as manager of the latter's hacienda in the municipality of Angono, Province of Rizal, with a salary of P30 a month and free food equivalent to P15 monthly, or a total of P45 a month, and in that capacity had served the defendant until the day he was murdered.
4. That on or about April 8, 1936, Angeles Gaspar was murdered in the barrio of Angono, Province of Rizal, by Perfecto Picones, former manager of the hacienda, the motive of the crime being the hatred he bore the deceased when he was discharged from the hacienda by the defendant and his position given to the deceased.
5. That the defendant knew of the murder of his employee or the deceased Angeles Gaspar on or about April 17, 1936, that is, the ninth day after the murder.
In support of their action, the plaintiffs invoke the provisions Act No. 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812 of the Philippine Legislature, and Act No. 210 of the Commonwealth. Section 1 of said law, however, expressly provides that the application of its provision is limited to cases of industrial employees who, in the performance of their work, contract an illness or suffer an accident not imputable to them; and, by "industrial employment", in the case of private employer as the present one, is meant, according to subsection (d) of section 39 of the law, ". . . all employment or work at a trade, occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain, the gross income of which in the year immediately preceding the one during which the accident occurred was not less than forty thousand pesos, except agriculture, charitable institutions, and domestic service," which shows that the plaintiff's action cannot prosper, because the facts upon which it is based, granting that they are true, are not those which create a right of action, nor do they constitute such right. The lower court was correct in sustaining the defendant's demurrer inasmuch as the deceased Angeles Gaspar, at the time of the mishap mentioned in the complaint, was not an industrial employee of the defendant in the sense contemplated by the aforesaid law, nor was it caused by an accident arising from, or in the course of, the performance of his work, Having reached this conclusion it is scarcely necessary to consider the third question raised, for whether the action had been filed within or after the period prescribed by law, the same could not have prospered anyway, for the reasons already stated.
Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed, and, as the appellants are paupers, costs of the proceedings are de oficio. So ordered.
Avanceņa, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
