G.R. No. L-30587. October 28, 1977
NORTHERN MOTORS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND TERESITA VILLAPANIA, RESPONDENTS.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision dated March 19,
1969[1]
and the Resolution of the WCC en banc dated May 21, 1969[2]
in WC Case No. R04-91439 entitled “Teresita
Villapania, et al., vs. Northern Motors, Inc. and Detective and Protective
Bureau Inc.”.
The private respondent, Teresita Villapania, in her behalf and in
behalf of her minor children, Emilio, Enrique, Ernesto, Elias, Orlando and
Jesus, all surnamed Bautista, filed a compensation claim against Northern
Motors, Inc., (hereinafter called NMI for short) and Detective & Protective
Bureau, Inc. (hereinafter called DPBI for short) for the accidental death on
July 13, 1965 of her husband, Emilio S. Bautista, an employee of the respondent
DPBI but assigned as watchman of the respondent, NMI, before the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 4; that respondent DPBI submitted its
employer’s report admitting that the deceased Emilio S. Bautista was its
employee and was injured in regular occupation and signified its intention to
controvert the claim but without stating any ground or reason for such controversion;
that the other respondent, NMI, did not controvert the claim; that in their
contract, the DPBI assumed all responsibility for the proper performance of the
duties of all the security guards and agreed to hold NMI free from any liability under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act; that the DPBI executed a bond in favor of the NMI in the amount of
P10,000.00 to secure full performance by DPBI of its obligations under the
contract; that the Acting Referee of Region 4 rendered an award the dispositive
portion of which reads:
“AWARD, therefore, is hereby rendered and the respondents
Northern Motors, Inc. and Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc., are ordered
jointly and severally to pay:
1. The claimant, thru this Office, the total sum
of FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS and 60/100 (P5,185.60), as
compensation and reimbursement of burial expenses; and
2. This Office, the sum of FIFTY PESOS (P50.00)
as fee, pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, Bill No.
W-1163-65 is attached.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, June 17, 1966.
(Sgd.) ATANACIO A. MARDO
Acting Chief
Referee & Chief of Section”[3]
Upon denial of both
respondents’ Motions to lift Order of Award and to Set the case for hearing and
trial, the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. A decision dated March 19, 1969 was rendered
by Associate Commissioner Paciano C. Villavieja the dispositive portion of
which reads:
“In view of all the foregoing, the award sought to be
reconsidered should be, as it is hereby modified and the respondent, the NMI is
hereby ordered to pay the claimants, through this Commission, the total amount
of FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE PESOS and 60/100 to pay to the
Workmen’s Compensation Fund, as costs, pursuant to Section 55 of the said Act,
the total sum of FIFTY-FIVE (P55.00), which includes the P5.00 fees for his
review.
WHEREFORE, as above modified in part, the award under review
should be, as it is hereby affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, March 19, 1969.
(Sgd.) PACIANO C. VILLAVIEJA
Associate
Commissioner”[4]
The NMI filed a petition
for reconsideration of said decision. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission in a
resolution en banc dated July 21, 1969,[5] denied the petition for reconsideration.
This Court issued a resolution
dated July 8, 1969 denying the petition.[6]
Upon considering the
motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner and the respondents’ comment
thereon, this Court gave due course to the petition for review in a resolution
dated September 3, 1969.[7]
The petitioner assigns
the following errors:
“I
THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION EN BANC (WCC) ERRED IN
DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF THE RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE CONTROVERTED
COMPENSATION CLAIM.
II
THE WCC ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DETECTIVE & PROTECTIVE
BUREAU, INC. (DPBI) IS A BONA FIDE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND
EXCLUSIVE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED EMILIO S. BAUTISTA.
III
THE WCC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS THE STATUTORY EMPLOYER
OF THE DECEASED EMILIO S. BAUTISTA.
IV
THE WCC ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY P5,185.60 TO RESPONDENT
TERESITA VILLAPANIA AND P55.00 TO THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION FUND.”[8]
To support its contention
that it is not liable for the compensation
award, the petitioner invokes
the Contract of Service, (Annex “E-2”) executed by it with DPBI, the
pertinent provisions of which are:
“(c) THE AGENCY hereby assumes and undertakes any
and all responsibilities for the proper performance of the duties of all the
security guards furnished by it; THE AGENCY further holds and binds itself to
answer for all losses and damages, which through any commission of acts or
omission of duties by such security guards, may be the cause or reason of the
losses and damages to THE COMPANY; and by way of guarantee for this obligation,
THE AGENCY hereby furnishes a Surety Bond of TEN THOUSAND PESOS,
(P10,000.00), Philippine Currency, payable to THE COMPANY herein above
mentioned.
(d) The
said guards shall be directly hired by THE AGENCY, and this contract of
employment shall not be between THE COMPANY and any of the guards hired or
taken by THE AGENCY, but merely as a contract covering conditions of
employment of THE AGENCY, it being clearly understood and agreed upon that this
contract is solely between THE COMPANY and THE AGENCY.
(e) THE
AGENCY hereby undertakes to pay the wages of said security guards in
accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 60-2)
and of the rules and regulations issued by the Wage Administration Service
implementing the same, assuming all responsibilities therefor.
(f) THE
AGENCY also agrees to hold THE COMPANY free from any liability, cause or causes
of action, claim or claims, which may be filed by any of its security guards
by reason of their employment under this contract or under the provisions of
the Mininum Wage Law, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Employer’s Liability Act,
Eight Hour Labor Law, and any other law or laws which are now in effect or
which may hereafter be enacted.”[9]
The applicable provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is
Sec. 39 (a) which reads:
“‘Employer’
includes every person or association of persons, incorporated or not, public or
private, and the legal representative of the deceased employer. It includes the owner or lessee of a factory
or establishment or place of work or any other person who is virtually the
owner or manager of the business carried on in the establishment or place of
work but who, for the reason that there is an independent contractor in the
same, or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of laborers employed
there.”
This Court, in a case[10] with facts similar to the facts in the case
at bar, ruled:
“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.” (Ibid., pp. 54-55)
In the recent case of
Aboitiz Co., Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al.,[11] this Court reiterated the statutory employer
liability of the company furnished with security guards by
the agency as independent contractor but upheld the terms embodied in their
contract of service whereby the company, upon payment of the award to the
claimant, has the right of reimbursement from the agency by virtue of such
contract of security guard service. The
pertinent portion of the decision reads:
“Petitioner has valid cause for complaint. Under its contract for security guard service with respondent security agency, the
latter had expressly assumed sole responsibility for all liabilities under the
labor laws including the Workmen’s Compensation Act that may be claimed by
the guard, as follows:
‘h) The AGENCY shall
solely assume all responsibilities and liabilities for any claim or demand by
or against the guard arising under all Philippine Labor Laws, including
overtime pay, extra compensation on Sundays
and legal holidays, liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
Social Security Act. x x x.’
While 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.”[12]
In the present case, the
DPBI has agreed to hold the NMI free from any liability for claims under the
labor laws that may be filed by the security guards.
WHEREFORE, the decision and resolution of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed are hereby affirmed with the
modification that the amounts to be paid shall be P6,000.00 as death
compensation, P200.00 as reimbursement for burial expenses, P600.00 as
attorney’s fees and P61.00 as administrative costs and that the Detective
& Protective Bureau, Inc. shall reimburse the petitioner, Northern
Motors, Inc., whatever amount the latter shall pay on the award in favor of the
claimants represented by the private respondent, Teresita Villapania, and the
fees, without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
[1]
Annex “D”, Rollo, pp. 26-30.
[2]
Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 50.
[3] Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 21.
[4] Annex “D”, p. 30.
[5] Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 50.
[6] Rollo, p. 52.
[7] Rollo, p. 67.
[8] Brief for the Petitioner, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 106.
[9] Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[10] Universal Corn Products, Inc. vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 57 SCRA 51.
[11] G. R. No. L-42134, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA
611.
[12] Ibid., pp. 613-614.