JOSE MANAPAT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND PAULINO SYLIANGCO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF PAVA DEEP SEA FISHING ENTERPRISES, RESPONDE…

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission which denied a claim
for compensation of petitioner Jose Manapat on the
ground that he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the private
respondent.

Private respondent Paulino Syliangco owns the PAVA Deep Sea Fishing Enterprises, a
firm engaged, as its name implies, in deep sea fishing.  In the pursuit of his business, Mr. Syliangco owns launches and vessels and one of them, the
M/V Don Paulino I was involved in this case.

Petitioner Jose Manapat is a master
carpenter.  The records show that he has
worked in the repair and upkeep of the private respondent’s many vessels from
1960 up to the incident on May 27,
1965, which led to the claim for workmen’s compensation
benefits.  While working with other
carpenters in the repair of the M/V Don Paulino I, the petitioner suffered a cerebro-vascular
accident which caused his disability.  A
joint physical and medical examination performed on the petitioner on September
12, 1968 at the evaluation division of the respondent commission showed an
official finding of temporary total disability for eight (8) months and
permanent partial disability of 45% NSC (a.f.).

On January 19, 1967,
the Department of Labor’s Regional Office No. 4 awarded compensation to Mr. Manapat on the basis of a P10.00 daily wage.  On appeal to the respondent commission, the
decision of the regional office was affirmed with modification.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, AFFIRMED with the foregoing modifications, and the respondent is
ordered as follows:

“1.  To pay to claimant, thru this Commission, the
amount of FOUR THOUSAND SIXTY EIGHT PESOS (P4,068.00) as disability benefits
under Sec. 14 of the Act, as amended, from May 27, 1965 up to this date, July
26, 1967, and weekly thereafter beginning July 27, 1967 at the rate of P36.00
per week, until he is pronounced cured;

“2.  To provide the claimant with such services,
appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and the process of his
recovery may require, and that which will promote the early restora­tion to the
maximum level of his physical capacity, pursuant to Sec. 13 of the sane Act;

“3.  To reimburse the claimant of the sum of P1,530.65 as medical expenses incurred by him;

“4.  To pay claimant’s counsel of record, the sum
of P406.80 as attorney’s fees; and

“5.  To pay into the Wormen’s
Compensation Fund, the sum of SIXTY SIX PESOS (P66.00) as partial payment of
administration costs, including the postponement fees in the regional level and
costs of this review, in accordance with Sec. 55 of the Act, as amended.”

However, acting on a motion for
reconsideration, the commission reversed itself and absolved the private
respondent from any compensation responsibility in connection with the
claimant’s claim.

In arriving at its determination that the petitioner was an
independent contractor, the respondent commission applied the elements of an
employer-employee relationship enunciated in Viaña
v. Al Lagadan, et al (99 Phil. 408) namely:  (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and, most
important, (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.

The petitioner had other carpenters and workers working under
him.  Among them were Fely,
Ador, Lauro, Pedring, and a man whose name he forgot.  Apart from the owner, the petitioner also had
an “encargado” boss.

From the answers to the questions propounded to the petitioner,
the respondent commission con­cluded that he was an independent
contractor.  When asked who hired the men
helping repair the launch, Manapat stated that he
hired them, con­tracting that some would be paid P7.00 a day and some P9.00 a
day, but upon instructions of Mr. Syliangco.  The petitioner stated that he would get money
from respondent Paulino Syliangco
and pay the workers their wages. 
However, there was a sheet of paper used as a payroll where the men signed.  The payroll was then turned over to a
“Mr. Eric” of the firm.  If one
worker was inef­ficient, Manapat would dismiss that
worker and then tell Mr. Syliangco.  After the dismissal, Manapat
would tell Paulino Syliangco
that he (the petitioner) would look for a substitute.  The petitioner was given discretion in the
repairs of the boats.  He was not told to
follow any plan or specification but an encargado
named Mario would tell him to change his work if it was not satis­factory.

On the basis of the petitioner’s answers, the respondent
commission granted the motion for reconsideration and ruled that he used his
own means, his own men, and his own methods in the performance of his job
without the owner inter­fering and only when the repairs were completed would
his work be checked.  The commission
declared Manapat an independent contractor.

A careful consideration of the same facts leads us to a different
conclusion.  Not every worker who is
given a great amount of discretion including supervision over his fellow
workers should be declared an independent contractor.

Petitioner Manapat was a daily wage
worker earning ten pesos a day.  By the
very nature of his job, he had to be given discretion.  A master carpenter hired to repair boats and
launches in a deep sea fishing enterprise would not be guided every step of the
way – on how he would drive a nail, cut a piece of lumber, apply melted pitch
to form the caulking, and perform the many other unforeseen carpentry
requirements of any major or even minor repair jobs.  It is enough if a damaged launch or boat
which requires car­pentry work is shown to him and he is left to decide how
best to repair it.  The fact that the
owner is interested only in the result, in the carpenter doing a good job, does
not make the latter an independent contractor. 
The petitioner’s work was continuing in nature, over many years and for
different vessels.  When there was no
vessel calling for carpentry repairs, Manapat was put
to work on the private respondent’s trucks.

The fact that Mr. Syliangco left the
selection and discipline of the other carpenters and helpers to petitioner Manapat is likewise not conclusive proof that the latter
was an independent con­tractor.  Mr. Manapat was the master carpenter, the foreman and
supervisor of carpentry work.  He knew
better than the owner how many carpenters would be needed to complete the
repairs on a boat in the time that it was laid up prior to going out to sea
again.  Knowing the extent and nature of
needed repairs, he knew who among his helpers was working well and who should
be replaced.

More important is that the petitioner worked for Syliangco on daily wages from 1960 up to the time he
suffered the disability in 1965.  He had
no office.  Dependent as he was on his
P10.00 daily wage, he had no independent funds to pay the carpenters under his
supervision.  He was a mere conduit of
the employer, charged with handing out wages to workers at so many pesos a day
according to their respective abilities. 
While the unpleasant job of dis­missing inefficient workers was left to
him, he always had to tell Mr. Syliangco who was the
real employer of everybody working in the PAVA Deep Sea Fishing Enterprise.

There was an overall encargado, Dominador Isla him­self an
employee, to whom the petitioner gave reports on the progress of carpentry
repair jobs and from whom he received instructions whenever Syliangco
did not deal with him directly.

An employee who is given a more or less free hand in the
technical details of one operation in an enter­prise or firm and who is made a
supervisor over skilled workers hired as the need arises does not become an
independent contractor simply because the employer dele­gates to that employee
many functions and responsibilities which the employer himself may discharge.  This is es­pecially true in family
businesses, fishing and farming, and cottage industries where informal and
unwritten relationships prevail and the clear cut distinctions governing
labor-management relations may, at times be blurred.

The petitioner is an employee and must receive the compensation
which the law provides.

Not only the statutory requirements found in the Workmen’s
Compensation Act but the mandate expressed in Section 5, Article II of the 1935
Constitution, that “the promotion of social justice to insure the well being
and economic security of all the people should be the concern of the
State” call for such a conclusion.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Workmen’s Com­pensation
Commission dated February 19, 1969
is hereby reversed and set aside.  The
private respondent is ordered:

1.     
To pay petitioner Jose Manapat,
through the Ministry of Labor and Employment, the sum of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS as compensation for disability benefits.

2.     
To provide the petitioner with such medical
services and supplies as the nature of his illness may require as of the time
this decision is executed;

3.     
To reimburse the petitioner of the sum of
P1,530.65 as medical expenses incurred by him;

4.     
To pay attorney’s fees for petitioner’s counsel
the sum of Six Hundred (P600.00) Pesos; and

5.     
To pay the successor of the defunct com­mission
administrative fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez,
and Relova, JJ., concur.