Bautista v. F.O. Borromeo, 32 SCRA 119

 

 

Bautista v. F.O. Borromeo, 32 SCRA 119

Facts:

September 15,1964 accident along EDSA

Roberto Tan (petitioner) owner of FORD Truck

Abelardo Bautista (petitioner)driver of FORD truck

Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by Federico Borromeo

Quintin Delgado, helper of the truck died.

Borromeo had to pay Delgado's widow the sum of P4,444 representing the compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses due Delgado under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

 

          On June 17, 1965, upon the finding that the said vehicular accident was caused by petitioners' negligence, Borromeo started suit to recover from petitioners the compensation and funeral expenses it paid to the widow of Quintin Delgado.

At the scheduled hearing of the case on July 23, 1965 neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared. Borromeo was then allowed to present its evidence ex parte. On the same day, the municipal court rendered judgment in favor of Borromeo and against the petitioners in the principal sum of P 4,444.00 and P 500.00 attorney’s fees, and costs.

On AUGUST 6, 1965, petitioners received a copy of the municipal court’s decision.

On AUGUST 13, 1965, petitioners moved to set aside the decision. On August 14, 1965, the motion was denied.

On AUGUST 16, 1965, copy of this order of denial was sent by registered mail to counsel of petitioners. Said counsel did not receive this registered mail and the mail matter was returned to the court unclaimed. However, said counsel learned of this denial on September 2, 1965 allegedly "in the course of his investigation."

 

Issue:

1.    Whether the respondents (Borromeo) have an obligation to pay their employee’s widow death benefits.

 

Held:

            No, Borromeo is not obliged to pay his employee’s widow death benefits. Borromeo paid the widow of its employee, Quintin Delgado, compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses for the latter's death while in the course of employment. This obligation arises from law — Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The same law in its Section 6 also provides that "in case an employee suffers an injury for which compensation is due under this Act by any other person besides his employer, it shall be optional with such injured employee either to claim compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person for damages, in accordance with law; and in case compensation is claimed and allowed in accordance with this Act, the employer who paid such compensation or was found liable to pay the same, shall succeed the injured employee to the right of recovering from such person what he paid: ..."

          (In non-legal terms, tungod ana na provision sa law under Workmen’s Compensation Act, naay right si Borromeo mag file ug suit against the people na nakabangga sa iyang helper na si Delgado.)

There is no need to establish any contractual relationship between Delgado and the petitioners because in this case there is none. The cause of action of the respondent corporation is one which does not spring from a creditor-debtor relationship. It arises by virtue of its subrogation to the right of Quintin Delgado to sue the guilty party. Such subrogation is sanctioned by the Workmen's Compensation Law.

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more