![]() The work is purely casual when it is not a part of the business of the employer' complements and explains the term "purely casual". Casual means occasional, coming without regularity. It will be noted that in order that an employee may not be responsible for an injury to a laborer, it is necessary that the " employment is purely casual and is not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer". This view is in accord with our decision in Caro vs. He had no capital of his own because he himself is a laborer. He acted as representative of the respondent and herded the workers for the latter. The allegation that the laborers were the employees of an independent contractor has no basis in fact, as the alleged contractor, Rufo Dimavildo, appears more to be of a foreman of the respondent. While the respondent dwelt lengthily on the proposition that the work of the laborers involved was casual or temporary in nature, it never denied the fact that the work performed - the excavation of the high portions of the fishpond and the fixing of the dikes - was not only for the purpose of the business of the respondent as a fishpond owner, but also a necessary routine for the repair and maintenance of its operation. But even if we were to resolve the issue squarely we will find that respondent's contention is not tenable. Hence, respondent is estopped from raising this issue before this Office. It was the claimant alone who appealed from such decision. However, the respondent did not object to this finding, and as a matter of fact, he never appealed from the decision which contained this finding. With respect to the first ground, it should be noted that the Hearing Officer of Regional Office V, Iloilo City, in rendering his decision on these cases, ruled that there existed employee-employer relation between the workmen involved and the respondent. The Workmen's Compensation Commission rejected such pretense, upon the ground that: Petitioner maintains that Drilon and Digdigan were not his employees, he having engaged their services on a "pakiao" or piece work system, through one Rufo Dimavildo, who, he contends, is an independent contractor. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari. Del Rosario sought a reconsideration, which was denied by the Commission sitting en banc. As adverted to above, said decision was, on appeal, set aside by an order of the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. V rendered a decision dismissing both claims. ![]() After a joint hearing of the two (2) cases, in view of the common questions of fact and law therein involved, the hearing officer of said Regional Office No. The other workers, including Drilon, recovered.Īs a consequence, two (2) separate claims for compensation were filed, one by Drilon and another by Digdigan's mother, Lucia Deloritos. As Drilon and Digdigan had convulsions, lost consciousness and appeared to be in serious condition, they were brought to the Iloilo Provincial Hospital, where Digdigan died the next day. After their work in the afternoon, they had their dinner consisting of rice brought by Drilon and fish caught from the fishpond by some members of the group. The workers were picked up by a truck of Del Rosario in the municipality of Dumanga, Iloilo on January 7, 1958, at about 6:00 a.m., and brought to said fishpond that same morning, at about 9: 00 o'clock. The record shows that in January, 1958, ten (10) men, including Eugenio Drilon and the now deceased Francisco Digdigan, were engaged by Del Rosario to do some excavation work in his fishpond in the barrio of Colong-Colong, municipality of Zarraga, province of Iloilo, on a piece work or "pakiao" basis, with the understanding that the workers were to provide themselves with their own tools and food during the period of the excavation, which was expected to last for about a month. V and ordering the corresponding hearing officer to enter, after further proceedings, a new decision against Aguedo del Rosario the respondent therein and petitioner herein, awarding compensation to the claimants in said cases and herein respondents Lucia Deloritos and Eugenio Drilon. This is an appeal from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission setting aside a decision in the above entitled two (2) cases of its Regional Office No. Demaisip for respondents Eugenio Drilon and Lucia Deloritos. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, ETC., ET AL., EUGENIO DRILON and LUCIA DELORITOS, respondents. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |