FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, PETITIONER VS. GERARDO MURILLO, RESPONDENT.

Gerardo Murillo filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission against Francisco Bautista arising from an injury that
he suffered while in the employ of the latter. The claim was controverted on the
ground that the construction of the building where the alleged accident took
place was being done on the residential building of respondent and as such is
not compensable aside from the fact that the claimant cannot be considered as an
employee within the meaning of the law.

The pertinent facts as found by the referee who received the evidence are:
Francisco Bautista at the time of the accident was engaged in business as a
dealer of gravel and sand for building construction. Before said accident the
business was conducted on the ground floor of his residential house located at
No. 350 Dimasalang St., Manila, the upper floor being used by his family as
residence. On March 16, 1955, he decided to have the place where he was
conducting his business demolished and a new building erected in its place and
meanwhile he had his business temporarily transferred to the house of his
brother situated about 10 meters away.

Murillo, the claimant, became acquainted with Bautista when his brother,
Jesus Murillo, a servant of Bautista, introduced him to the latter as he was in
need of work three months before the construction. The claimant was not a
regular employee of Bautista in the construction but he volunteered to
help since he was allowed to lodge in Bautista’s residence at the invitation of
his brother. Sometime in March, 1955, while part of the stone wall was being
demolished and the claimant was performing odd jobs in and around the
construction the wall toppled down and caught claimant’s left leg resulting in
its fracture. The construction was undertaken personally by Bautista and upon
learning of the accident he personally directed that claimant be brought to the
North General Hospital for treatment. He was later taken to the National
Orthopedic Hospital, Bautista paying the incidental expenses. In consideration
of the services rendered by the claimant during the construction lie was paid
P3.00 a day.

On the strength of the foregoing facts, the referee rendered decision holding
that claimant “while not being a regular employee, was impliedly employed as a
‘casual’ laborer to help in the construction of the building connected with
respondent’s business by performing odd jobs in connection with said building
construction.” Consequently, he ordered respondent to pay claimant the stun of
P699.56 by way of disability compensation, and the sum of P7.00 to the
Commission as fees pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

Respondent filed a petition for review alleging that the decision of the
referee was contrary to law and the evidence, and when this petition was denied,
he appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Again this plea was denied
when the Commission affirmed in toto the decision of the referee. The case is
now before us on a petition for review interposed by respondent.

It is contended that because claimant merely used to perform odd jobs during
the construction of the building where he suffered the accident because “he was
ashamed to the alleged employer for allowing him to lodge in his residence free”
he was not a regular employee, but a mere casual laborer, and as such is not
entitled to compensation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
It is true that the referee made the conclusion that claimant “while not being a
regular employee, was impliedly employed as a ‘casual’ laborer to help in the
construction of the building connected with the respondent’s business by
performing odd jobs in connection with said building construction”, but this
does not mean that said claimant has not been actually employed, for it appears
proven that in consideration of the services he has rendered he was paid by
respondent P3.00 a day. He is, therefore, actually an employee of respondent,
even if casual, when the accident took place.

The question now to be determined is: being a casual employee can he be
considered a laborer within the meaning of the law? Being a casual laborer is he
entitled to compensation?

Section 39 (b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides:

” ‘Laborer’ is used as a synonym of ’employee’ and means every person who has
entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract
for an employer. It does not include a person whose employment is purely casual
and is not for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer. * * *”

It would appear that a laborer or employee means every person who has entered
the employment or works under the service of another, excluding therefrom one
whose employment is purely casual or is not for the purposes of the business of
the employer. It thus appears that as a rule one who holds merely a casual
employment, like that of claimant, does not come within the purview of the law;
it is still necessary that the employment be had for the purposes of the
business of the employer. The facts obtaining in this case seem to fit into the
scope of this definition for here it was found by the referee that not only was
claimant a casual employee but that he actually worked in the construction of
the building which was being undertaken in connection with the business in which
respondent was then engaged. It should be remembered that the place where the
business of respondent was conducted was being demolished and another one
constructed in its place, and it was in connection with such construction that
the accident happened. It may, therefore, be said that the claim of claimant was
for the purposes of the business of his employer.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, being a social legislation designed to give
relief to labor in case of injury, its provisions should be given a liberal
interpretation in order to fully carry into effect its beneficent provisions.
Doubts as to the right of labor to compensation should be resolved in its
favor.

” ‘In addition to cases holding that workmen’s compensation’ acts should be
given interpretation in favor of the employee, a number of cases hold that the
acts should or must be construed fairly, reasonably, or liberally, in favor, or
for the benefit, of employees or their dependents, all doubts as to the right to
compensation being resolved in their favor, and all presumptions indulged being
in their favor; and there are statutory provisions for a liberal construction in
favor of employees injured.’

” ‘The intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the necessity or
reason of the act and the meaning of words is to be derived from consideration
of the whole act, and doubts respecting the rights to compensation should be
resolved in favor of the employees or his dependents.’ ” (Francisco vs. Consing,
63 Phil., 354)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from as affirmed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in its resolution dated December 19, 1957, is hereby
affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.