JAHARA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE MINDANAO LUMBER COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an action commenced in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
by the plaintiffs for the recovery of compensation from the defendant
company for the death of the workman, Moro Sapturani, in accordance
with the provisions of Act No. 3428, otherwise known as the “Workmen’s
Compensation Act”.

The above-mentioned plaintiffs appealed
from the judgment rendered by the trial court absolving the defendant
from the complaint, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Prior to the date of the accident, the late Moro Kingan was engaged in
the business of cutting timber within the defendant’s concession,
employing laborers for that purpose, among them Moro Sapturani. Kingan
paid his cutters’ wages and delivered the timber and firewood to the
defendant company which paid him the corresponding value thereof. On
the morning of February 12, 1930, between 6 and 6.30 o’clock,
Sapturani, who was about to go to the place where he was engaged in
cutting timber, by means of the defendant’s train operating in that
place, was run over by the last car of the train as it was moving
backwards, and died almost instantly as a result of injuries received
on different parts of his body.

Mora Jahara, the divorced
wife of the deceased, his daughters, Albaya and Mandasiang, and their
respective husbands, Ladya and Bachaja, are the plaintiffs and
appellants in this case.

Such are the undisputed facts of record. We shall discuss later how the accident occurred.

The appellants assign the following alleged errors in the trial court’s decision:

“I.
The trial court erred in not granting the plaintiffs the period of
three days prayed for, within which to file and introduce as evidence a
document showing the gross annual income for the year 1929 of the
defendant corporation, of over P40,000.

“II. The court a quo erred
in holding that the accident causing the death of Moro Sapturani was
due to his negligence in trying to embark on the rear platform of the
train of the defendant corporation at the Chinkang Sawmill, Naga-Naga,
which was moving backwards at the time of the accident, and not holding
that Moro Sapturani was overrun and killed by the train of the
defendant corporation thru the negligence and carelessness of the
employees of the latter.

“III. The trial court erred in
holding that the preponderance of the weight of evidence is in favor of
the defendant and against that of the plaintiffs.

“IV.
The trial court erred in holding that in view of the negligence of Moro
Sapturani, the defendant can not be made liable for the payment of
compensation to the plaintiffs under the Workmen’s Compensation Act No.
3428 as amended by Act No. 3812, and in not holding that even admitting
the facts stated in the decision, the paupers-appellants are still
entitled to their claim under the law.

“V. The trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial.”

We shall refrain from considering all of the errors assigned by the
appellants, limiting ourselves to the discussion and solution of the
questions relating to the manner in which the accident happened and
whether the accident or Sapturani’s death was the result of his own
notorious negligence. Proceeding thus, we shall decide the appeal on
its merits.

The trial court declared that the deceased was
notoriously negligent in connection with the accident, because the
evidence shows that he tried to board the rear platform of the car as
it was moving backwards; that he succeeded in getting a foothold but
failing to obtain a hold of the car, he fell to the ground and was run
over by the train.

We have reviewed all the evidence
presented and find that the conclusions reached by the trial court are
supported by a preponderance thereof. We note that the plaintiffs’
witnesses named Bachaja and Mandasiang gave a different version of the
accident stating that the deceased, who was between the rails at that
time, was knocked down and run over by the train as it was moving
backwards, without the engineer noticing him, but we agree with the
trial court that this story is improbable and inaccurate. As stated by
the trial court, it was difficult for the accident to happen in this
manner because, even without the warning of the whistles, Sapturani
should have been aware of the proximity of the train and could easily
have avoided it by only getting off the rails.

Turning to
the legal aspect of the case, we likewise agree with the lower court
that Sapturani acted with notorious negligence in attempting to board
the train in the manner in which he did and, consequently, the action
cannot be maintained in accordance with subdivision 3 of section 4 of
Act No. 3428 which provides that no action for the recovery of
compensation shall prosper when the accident upon which it is based is
due to the notorious negligence of the workman.

The judgment
appealed from should be, as it is hereby, affirmed without costs,
inasmuch as the appellants are paupers. So ordered.

Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, and Vickers, JJ., concur.