ENGRACIA ALARCON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JUAN ALARCON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
dismissing the complaint in this case. The record was certified to us by the
Court of Appeals, the only question raised in the appeal being one of law.

The facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

“On June 3, 1955 the defendant hired Urzino Azaña and his brother to dig a
well on his land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur. After the day’s work the two had
dug a hole about five feet meters deep without striking water.

“On the next day Urzino resumed his work with one Generoso Zulueta as
co-worker. Generoso was also hired by the defendant in place of Urzino’s brother
who did not return to work.

“Urzino and Generoso started their work early in the morning. Urzino was
lowered into the hole with a rope to dig deeper. On reaching the bottom he
quickly remarked that he was not feeling well. Generoso told him to get ready to
be pulled up, but a moment later Urzino fainted and slumped helplessly into a
sitting position.

“Generoso quickly called for help. A policeman and other persons immediately
responded. After their arrival Generoso lowered a ladder and proceeded to
descend into the hole. After having gone down about two meters, he felt a
current of hot air with an obnoxious odor around him. He soon realized that he
was not feeling well. Accordingly, he desisted from descending farther and
instead he climbed up out of the hole. One of the men then volunteered to go
down in his place, but he too could not reach the bottom for the same
reason.

“Realizing that it was not safe to go into the hole, Generoso and others
thought of another method to get out Urzino. With a rope tied into a loop on one
end, they caught one of his legs and pulled up his body. They next put him on
bed while someone summoned a doctor. In less than five minutes the municipal
health officer arrived. He quickly attempted to revive Urzino, but his efforts
proved unavailing because he was already dead. He certified that Urzino died of
asphyxia (Exhibit A).

“On the day of his death Urzino was single, 20 years old, and living with his
mother who is the plaintiff. She filed this action to recover compensation for
her son’s death under the provision of Art. 1711 of the Civil
Code.”

Apart from admitting in his answer some allegations of the complaint and
denying other allegations thereof, defendant alleged, as special defense, that
“plaintiff is in estoppel from filing this action * * * she having previously
raised the same question with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission”, and set up
a counterclaim for P3,000.00, as actual and moral damages.

In due course, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment
dismissing the complaint upon the ground that, “not being owner of enterprises
or employer of laborers in industry or business”, defendant herein is not liable
under Article 1711 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to pay compensation for
the death of Urzino Azaña, the same being purely accidental in nature. Hence,
this appeal by plaintiff.

The only issue in this case is whether the defendant falls under the
provisions of said Article 1711 reading:

“Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation
for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other
employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due
to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the
course of the employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the
result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee’s
own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall
not be liable for compensation. When the employee’s lack of due care contributed
to his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably
reduced.”

Defendant herein does not own any enterprise. He is merely a school teacher
who needed a well. Neither does he fall under the category of “other employers”
mentioned in said Article 1711. Under the principle of ejusdem generis,
said “other employers” must be construed to refer to persons who belong to a
class analogous to “owners of enterprises”, such as those operating a business
or engaged in a particular industry or trade, requiring its managers to contract
the services of laborers, workers and/or employees.

Indeed, said Article 1711 is part of Section 2, Chapter 3, Title VIII of our
Civil Code. Speaking about the purpose of said section 2, the Code Commission
said:

“The Republic of the Philippines, through the people’s constitutional
mandate, is definitely committed to the present-day principle of social justice.
In keeping with this fundamental policy, the Project of Civil Code, while on the
one hand guaranteeing property rights, has on the other seen to it that the
toiling masses are assured of a fair and just treatment by capital or
management.” (Report, p. 13.)

Referring particularly to Article 1707 of said Code, which is part of the
aforementioned section 2, the Commission expressed itself as follows:

“By virtue of this new lien, the laborers who are not paid by an unscrupulous
and irresponsible industrialist or manager may by legal means have the goods
manufactured through the sweat of their brow, sold and out of the proceeds get
their salary, returning the excess, if any. * * *”. (Report, p.
14.)

As His Honor, the trial Judge had correctly observed, the terms “capital”,
“management”, “industrialist”, “manager” and “owners of enterprises”, used to
describe the employers alluded to in said section 2, indicate that they
contemplate those engaged more or less in business or industry. In fact, the
aforementioned Article 1711 merely states the philosophy underlying the
Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428) and must be interpreted in relation
thereto, for Article 2196 of the same Code provides that “compensation for
workmen and other employees in case of death, injury or illness is regulated by
special laws”. Pursuant to section 39(b) of Act No. 3428, as amended:

“‘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. * *
*”. (Italics supplied.)

Inasmuch as the employment of Urzino Azaña by defendant herein was “purely
casual” and was not “for the purposes of the occupation or business” of said
defendant, it is clear to us that Urzino Azaña is not covered by the provisions
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Neither may plaintiff herein avail of the
benefits of the Employer’s Liability Act (Act No. 1874), which she does not
invoke, for it is not claimed that Urzino’s death was due to “a defect in the
condition of the ways, works or machinery connected with or used in the business
of the employer”, or to “the negligence of a person in the service of the
employer”. Hence, there is no means by which defendant herein may be held liable
for Azaña’s death, due to an accidental cause or fortuitous event (Cerezo
vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., 33 Phil., 425).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without costs,
considering that plaintiff-appellant is litigating as a pauper. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.