BOLINAO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND LUIS GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for the review of a decision rendered by the Chairman
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on April 16, 1964, affirmed by said Commis­sion en banc in a
resolution dated May 20, 1964.  The former sustained the decision rendered on
December 17, 1962 by the
Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor awarding compensation to
respondent Luis Garcia, as follows:

“Under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Com­pensation Act, as
amended, as reflected in the award dated April 27, 1962 issued by the Acting
Regional Administrator, claimant is entitled to the amount of P245.00 as com­pensation
for his temporary and total dis­ability for labor for seven (7) weeks, which is
a correct computation and hence for the purpose of his decision it is
reiterated herein.  It appears, however,
from the re­cord and as admitted by the claimant when he testified that he was
paid his full sa­lary during the period of his total dis­ability for labor, he
is, therefore, to be considered as having been paid under this Section.

“Under Section 18 of the Act in rela­tion to Section 17, he is
entitled to 50% of his average weekly wage for a period of 83.2 weeks which is
40% of 208 weeks non­scheduled disability. 
Fifty percentum of his average weekly wage
which was P300.00 equals P1150.00 and multiplying it by 83.2 weeks, the result
will be P12,480.00. 
Con­sidering that the maximum compensation be­nefit the claimant is
entitled under the Act is only P4,000.00, and in view of the fact that he was
paid his full salary dur­ing the period of his incapacity for labor which was
for seven (7) weeks or P2,100.00 (P300.00 average weekly wage x 7 weeks).
P245.00 of which as indicated above is the only amount he is entitled under the
Act, this sum he received during said period of disability should be deducted
from the maxi­mum compensation benefit of P4,000.00 or P1,900.00.

“Under Sections 14, 17 and 18, claimant is entitled to the
full compensation amount of P4,000.00 minus P2,100.00
or the balance of P1,900.00.

“Under Section 13 of the Act, claimant is entitled to be
reimbursed the full amount of medical, hospital and surgical expenses including
the fee for the surgeon’s services, he expended.  In this case he should be re­imbursed the
full amount of P5,669.15.

“WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered to pay claimant,
through this Office; the balance of compensation benefit of expenses and pay
this Office the amount of P41.00 as fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the. Act.”

The material facts involved in this case are covered by the
following stipulation of facts submitted by the parties to the abovementioned
Regional Office:

“1. That on December 8, 1961 at about 3:00 P.M., the claimant visited a client, Mr.
Cabby Cabarrubia, on Ayala
Avenue, Ma­kati,
Rizal, who had just opened his advertising agency
which had acquired the Liber­ty Milk Account from the Ace Advertising Agency
which had pending accounts with claimant’s office;

“2.  That upon returning to his car which was
parked in the parking area, he discovered that the rear right tire was flat and
as claimant had no driver, he proceeded to change the tire himself;

“3.  That while claimant was lifting the car with
the use of a car jack, the jack lever suddenly snapped and claimant felt a
sudden pain in his back around the waistline;

“4.  That as the pain continued for the next few
days, he consulted Dr. Romeo H. Gustilo who took
preliminary X-rays and subjected the claimant to the myelo­gram
test, which indicated that an opera­tion was needed;

“5.  That the claimant was confined at the Manila
Doctor’s Hospital from December 8,
1961 to December 29, 1961
and was operat­ed on by Dr. Gustilo on December 19, 1961;

“6   That as a result of the injury he sustained,
he was disabled for work from December
8, 1961 to January 28,
1962;

“7.  That at the time of the alleged accident on
December 8, 1961, claimant was the Manager of the Manila T.V. Division of the
respondent Bolinao Electronics Corporation, with a
salary of P15,600.00 per annum or an average weekly wage of P300.00;

“8.  That as Manager of the Manila T.V. Division,
the nature of claimant’s duties include the execution of policies handed down
by management and the Board of Directors; supervision of the various
departments of the Manila T.V. Division; direct responsibility to the General
Manager; and negotiation of sales contracts for television airtime;

“9.  That the parties reserved the right to present
additional evidence pertinent to the claim and which are not included in the
above stipulation.”

Sometime in January 1962 Garcia filed with Regional Office No. 4
of the Department of Labor a notice of injury or sickness, and claim for
compensation.  On May 10 of the same year
petitioner received a letter computation from said Regional Office computing
its liability at P5,669.15 for medical and hospital
expenses and for the further sum of P245.00 for disability compensation.  On May 23 of the same year, petitioner
formally moved for a reconsideration of the computation, praying further that
he be accorded an opportunity to controvert the claim and for a formal hearing
to determine whether or not the claim was compensable.  Pur­suant to this motion the Regional Office
set aside the afore­mentioned letter computation, reinstated petitioner’s right
to controvert the claim and referred the case to its Hearing Section for proper
determination.

On August 16, 1962,
the parties submitted the stipula­tion of facts reproduced above.

On December 17, 1962
the Regional Office No. 4 rendered decision holding that Garcia’s injury was
compensable.  There­after, upon refusal
of the Regional Office to reconsider its decision, the case was elevated to the
Wage Compensation Com­mission for review and on April 16, 1964, said Commission, through its Chairman,
affirmed the decision of the Regional Office, which decision, in turn, was
upheld by the Commission en banc.  Hence
the present petition for review.

The first issue now raised by petitioner is that the respondent
Commission erred in not holding that Garcia was not an “industrial
employee” and that, not being one, he was not entitled to the benefits
granted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.  In support of this view it is claimed that the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is applicable only to persons performing manual
labor in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  This contention is untenable.  A careful reading and understanding of the
provision relied upon will not fail to show that it is applicable to employees
and laborers in public works and the industrial concerns of the Government and
to all other persons performing manual labor in the service of the National
Government and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities.  It does not refer at all to employees and
laborers in private industrial firms.  While, on the one hand, it is clear that
petitioner is not a political subdivision nor an instrumentality of the
National Govern­ment and is not, therefore, entitled to invoke the pro­visions
of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, on the other hand, it is not
disputed that it is a private corporation doing business in the Philippines
with a capi­tal in excess of P10,000.  As such it is covered by the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

It is not denied that at the time of the accident respondent
Garcia was the Manager of the Manila TV Divi­sion of petitioner, his duties as
such including the execution of policies laid down by the Board of Directors
and the Management, supervision of the various departments composing his
division, direct responsibility to the General Manager and the negotiation of
sales contracts for television, and for all these he received a monthly salary
from petitioner.  This shows clearly that
there existed employer and employee relationship between them.  In this connection, it is worthy to note that
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the word “laborer” is used as
synonymous to “employee” and means “every person who has entered
the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract from an
employer”.  That respondent Garcia
was petitioner’s em­ployee can not, therefore, be doubted, and that his employ­ment
was “industrial employment” is clearly shown by subsection (d),
Section 39 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, according to which,
“industrial employment in case of private employers includes all
employment or work at a trade, occupation or profession exercised by an
employer for the purpose of gain, except domestic service”.

The second assignment of error, in our opinion, raises, more or
less, a question purely of fact, namely, whether or not the injuries suffered
by respondent Garcia arose out of and in the course of his employment.  All the decisions ren­dered below (by the
Hearing Officer, the Chairman of the Commission, and the Commission en banc)
held in the affirma­tive, and we have not found anything in the record justify­ing
a reversal thereof.  Indeed the record
fully supports said decisions.  According
to the stipulation of facts, in the afternoon of December 8, 1961 respondent
Garcia visited a client (Mr.Cabby Cabarrubia)
on Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal,
who had just opened his advertising agency which had acquired the Liberty account
from the Ace Advertis­ing Agency which had pending accounts with said
respondent’s office.  It is clear from
this that the matter that took Garcia to the office of Cabarrubia
that afternoon was di­rectly connected with the business and transactions of his
office as Manager of petitioner’s Manila TV division.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision and resolution
of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission appealed from are hereby
affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL,  Makalintal,
Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., took
no part.

Barredo, J., on
official leave.