G.R. No. L-38231. November 21, 1979
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, CONCEPCION L. VDA. DE HANDINERO, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, NAMELY: MARIA C…
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in RO4-WC Case No. 7690 (Jesus Handinero, Deceased),
entitled “Concepcion L. Vda. de Handinero, in her behalf and in behalf of
her minor children Maria Corazon, Maria Edita, Pedro and Sylvia, all surnamed
Handinero, Claimants, versus, Pama Special Watchman Agency and Philippine Trust
Company, Respondents,” the dispositive part of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, the decision appealed
from is hereby AFFIRMED, with some modifications as to attorney’s fees and
costs, and the respondent PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY is hereby ordered:
1) To pay the claimants herein, CONCEPCION L.
VDA. DE HANDINERO and her minor children named-above, through this Commission
and in lump sum, the total
amount of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00)
as death compensation benefits under Sections 8, 9, and 12 of the Act, as amended;
2) To pay to claimant CONCEPCION L. VDA. DE
HANDINERO, also in lump sum and through this Commission the additional amount
of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) as reimbursement for burial expenses incurred
under Section 3 of the same Act;
3) To pay to claimants counsel of record Atty.
Nicasio M. Helgado as his attorney’s fees, the sum of SIX HUNDRED PESOS
(P600.00) or ten percent of the amount due the claimants under Section 31 of
the said Act; and
4) To pay the Workmen’s Compensation Fund of
this Commission the total amount of SIXTY SIX PESOS (P66.00) as administrative
cost, pursuant to Section 55 of the same Act.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, June 11, 1973.”[1]
The private respondent, Concepcion L. Vda. de Handinero, is the
widow, and the other respondents, Maria Corazon, Maria Edita, Pedro and
Sylvia, all surnamed Handinero, are the children of the deceased, Jesus
Handinero, who died on May 7, 1968 while he was employed as watchman of the
petitioner, Philippine Trust Company.
On June 25, 1968, the private respondents, as claimants, filed a
complaint dated June 21, 1968 against the Pama Special Watchman Agency and
Cirilo Pama seeking to recover death compensation benefits by reason of the
death of Jesus Handinero during his employment with the respondent
agency. The Acting Referee rendered a
decision dated January 14, 1969 finding that the respondent agency was the
employer of Jesus Handinero. However,
on January 2, 1970, an amended claim was filed by the claimants including as
respondent Philippine Trust Company.
On February 19, 1970, the Philippine Trust Company, now
petitioner, filed its answer with crossclaim against respondent Pama Special
Watchman Agency.[2]
The Acting Referee rendered a new decision dated October 11,
1971 absolving the respondent Pama Special Watchman Agency from any liability
and holding the Philippine Trust Company, now petitioner, liable for the sums
sought to be recovered in the amended complaint.[3]
The Philippine Trust Company appealed to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission which affirmed with modifications the decision of the
Acting Referee.
The facts, as found by
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are:
“It appears that Jesus Handinero was one of the numerous
watchmen of respondent PAMA or AGENCY for short, since April of 1952. He was assigned as such watchman at the
Philippine Trust Company at Plaza Goiti, Manila with a tour of duty from 8:00
in the morning up to 6:00 in the afternoon and his last rate of salary was
P250.00 a month. It goes without saying
that when Handinero entered the employ of PAMA he was then in perfect health,
free from any sickness or ailment. Then, gradually, or about 2 months before his death, Handinero had been
complaining of some bodily manifestations, which he never had before, prompting
him to engage the professional services of Dr. Marcial Canida of Paco, Manila.
Records further show that on May 6, 1968, Jesus Handinero at around
6:00 o’clock in the morning, reported for work, as usual. While he was thus working at about 11:00
o’clock in the morning of the same day, Handinero suffered a stroke and he was
brought to the Philippine General Hospital. Cirilo Pama, the owner of the Agency, and Atty. Inocencio R. Seranilla
went to Handinero’s house and informed claimant herein, Concepcion L. Vda. de
Handinero, about the matter. The two
fetched the said widow and accompanied her to the hospital where the late
watchman was still unconscious and could not move, so Concepcion was not able
to talk to her husband anymore, while her husband was confined at the emergency
ward of said hospital till evening, for later on, Handinero was transferred to
the San Juan de Dios Hospital for further medication and he was attended by Dr. Conrado del
Rosario. Despite, however, continuous
medical care and treatment, Handinero never regained consciousness and died the
next day, May 7, 1968 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening due to cerebral
hemorrhage. (Exhibit B) The sum of
P680.00 was incurred for burial expenses paid to Funeraria Tres Amigos. (Exhibit C)
Jesus Handinero was survived by claimant-widow, Concepcion L. Vda.
de Handinero, his legal wife (Exhibit A) and their five (5) children, namely
Maria Gloria, who was already of age at the time her father died; Maria Edita
(July 24, 1952-Exhibit D-3); Pedro (March 1, 1954-Exhibit D); Maria Corazon
(November 23, 1956-Exhibit D-1); and Sylvia (November 3, 1960-Exhibit D-2), all
surnamed Handinero and all living with and fully dependent upon the late
watchman for support, during his lifetime and immediately before he
died.”[4]
The petitioner,
Philippine Trust Company, contends that it is not the employer of the deceased
Jesus Handinero because of its contract with the Pama Special Watchman Agency,
the pertinent portions of which are:
“3. That the guard or guards assigned or to be
assigned shall be the exclusive employees of the AGENCY, and in no case or way
may the guard or guards be accommodated or considered by the COMPANY as its
employees.
4. That the term of this contract shall be
from month to month, and may be terminated by either of the parties upon thirty
(30) days notice in writing made to the other party prior to the end of the
month.
5. That the AGENCY shall comply strictly at
its own expense, risk and responsibility with the provisions of the minimum
wage law and the workmen’s compensation law, and all other laws, orders or
circulars relating to employees and/or laborers; and the bond to be furnished
by the AGENCY shall also guarantee the payment of any sum that the COMPANY
might pay by reason of non-compliance with, or violation of, said laws, orders,
or circulars by the AGENCY provided, that the working hours of the guard
or guards furnished by the AGENCY shall be fixed by the COMPANY; provided
further, that the payment for overtime work and compliance with the Eight
Hour Labor Law shall be at the expense and responsibility of the AGENCY.”[5]
It is argued that under Section
39 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Act, as amended, Jesus Handinero was the employee of the Pama Special
Watchman Agency.
It is a fact that the late Jesus Handinero was one of
the several security guards of Pama Special Watchman Agency assigned to the
petitioner’s place of business. His
tour of duty was from 8:00 o’clock in the morning up to 6:00 o’clock in the
afternoon. It was Handinero’s duty to
guard the premises of the Philippine Trust Company and protect its main
business.
Actually, therefore, the
job of Jesus Handinero as watchman was a part of the petitioner’s banking
business. It was the duty of the watchman to keep peace and
order within the premises of the bank and see to it that the lives of the bank
officials and the bank’s properties were fully protected. Hence, the Philippine Trust Company may
properly be considered as the statutory employer of Jesus Handinero.
In Universal Corn
Products, Inc. versus Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al.,[6] this Court ruled:
“We sustain the award in favor of the private respondent. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of
the contract with the International Watchman Agency, the petitioner was the
employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos within the purview of Section 39 (a) of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act x x x.”
“There is no question that ‘the main business of the
petitioner is the milling and manufacture of various corn products, while the
security guards were furnished by the International Watchman Agency to guard
and protect the petitioner’s warehouses, materials machineries, and
buildings. Specifically, Hearing
Referee made the following findings regarding the nature of work performed by
the deceased Ricardo Ramos: ‘As such
security guard, the deceased’s work consisted in guarding the premises of the
respondent company, conducting inspections on outgoing and incoming trucks
and persons. While in the performance
of his work as such security guard; he was closely under the supervision of the
proper authorities of the respondent company. The security guards were not provided with arms by respondent company;
they, however, were provided with patches on their uniforms bearing the emblem
of the company as well as that of the security agency. ‘Furthermore, the
respondent Commission found that the petitioner ‘indispensably needed the
services of the security guards, x x x, to protect its business interest.’
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is evident that the work of the deceased
was part of the usual business of the petitioner. Consequently, even if the petitioner was not the direct employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos in view of the
intervention of an independent contractor, it was still the statutory employer
and therefore liable for the compensation claimed.”[7]
The demand of Philippine
Trust Co. by way of cross-claim against the PAMA Special Watchmen Agency for
reimbursement of the various above amounts that it had been ordered to pay to
the other private respondents as statutory employer of the deceased Jesus
Handinero is, however, well taken. Under petitioner’s contract for security guard service with said PAMA
Special Watchmen Agency, the latter agency had contractually assumed sole
responsibility fox all liabilities under the labor laws, including the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, that may be claimed by the security guards assigned
to petitioner. As the Court held in
Aboitiz & Co., Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 70 SCRA 611-613
(1976), “(W)hile petitioner was statutorily liable for the death
compensation for purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, still the
security agency should be held ultimately liable as the direct employer who
employed and furnished the security guard in pursuance of its business of
providing business establishments with the services of security guards. Furthermore, as already indicated, the security
agency was contractually liable to hold petitioner safe and harmless from any
such claims by virtue of the agency’s express contractual undertaking to assume
sole and ultimate liability therefor.”
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is hereby affirmed with the
modification that judgment is also rendered, sentencing respondent PAMA Special
Watchmen Agency to reimburse and pay
petitioner Philippine Trust Co. all the amounts adjudged against said
petitioner in respondent commission’s appealed decision.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 77.
[2]
Exhibit “F”, Rollo, pp. 45-49.
[3]
Exhibit “G”, Rollo, pp. 50-58.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 73-75.
[5]
Exhibit “A”, Rollo, pp. 27-30.
[6]
57 SCRA 51.
[7]
57 SCRA 54-55.