FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, PETITIONER VS. GERARDO MURILLO, RESPONDENT.

Bautista versus Murillo

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Francisco Bautista against Gerardo Murillo, arising from a claim for compensation filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Murillo suffered a fractured leg while working on the demolition and construction of a building on Bautista's property. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of who counts as a laborer under the Workmen's Compensation Act: a casual worker is excluded only when his employment is purely casual and not for the purposes of the employer's business. It also illustrates the rule of liberal construction in favor of labor.

Procedural History

The claim was filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission and was heard by a referee, who rendered a decision in favor of Murillo, ordering Bautista to pay disability compensation and fees. Bautista filed a petition for review before the Commission, which was denied; he then appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Commission en banc, which affirmed the referee's decision in full. The case reached the Supreme Court through a petition for review filed by Bautista.

Facts

At the time of the accident, Francisco Bautista was engaged in business as a dealer of gravel and sand for building construction. His business was conducted on the ground floor of his residential house in Manila, while the upper floor was used by his family as a residence. In March 1955, he decided to demolish the place where the business was conducted and erect a new building in its place, temporarily transferring his business to his brother's house about ten meters away.

Gerardo Murillo became acquainted with Bautista through his brother Jesus, who was a servant of Bautista. Murillo was not a regular employee in the construction, but he volunteered to help, having been allowed to lodge in Bautista's residence at his brother's invitation. Sometime in March 1955, while part of the stone wall was being demolished and Murillo was performing odd jobs in and around the construction, the wall toppled and caught his left leg, fracturing it.

Bautista personally directed that Murillo be brought to the hospital for treatment and paid the incidental expenses. In consideration of the services rendered during the construction, Murillo was paid three pesos a day.

Issues

• Whether or not Murillo, being a casual employee, is a laborer within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thus entitled to compensation.
• Whether or not the claim for compensation falls within the purposes of the employer's business, so as to bring the casual employment within the coverage of the law.

Applicable Provisions

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."

This provision defines who is a laborer and carves out the exclusion of purely casual employment not for the purposes of the employer's business, which is the very question in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Murillo was actually an employee of Bautista, even if casual, when the accident took place. The referee's finding that he was not a regular employee but was impliedly employed as a casual laborer did not mean he was not actually employed, for it was proven that he was paid three pesos a day in consideration of his services.

On the second issue, the Court held that the claim fell within the purposes of Bautista's business. The place where the business was conducted was being demolished and another constructed in its place, and it was in connection with such construction that the accident happened. Thus, the exclusion in the definition did not apply, because the employment, though casual, was for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer.

The Court further held that the Workmen's Compensation Act, being a social legislation designed to give relief to labor in case of injury, should be given a liberal interpretation, and doubts as to the right of labor to compensation should be resolved in its favor.

Doctrine

A laborer or employee means every person who has entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for, an employer. The law excludes from this definition a person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer. The two conditions are cumulative: casual employment alone does not remove a worker from coverage if the work is done for the purposes of the employer's business. Workmen's compensation laws are social legislation and must be construed liberally in favor of labor, with doubts resolved in the worker's favor.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from as affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, without pronouncement as to costs. Bautista lost; Murillo was awarded compensation.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a casual employee is excluded from the definition of laborer only if his employment is purely casual and not for the purposes of the employer's business. Examiners use this case to test the statutory definition of laborer under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the rule of liberal construction in favor of labor.