GR L 4466; (October, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952
ELENA AMEDO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant, Elena Amedo, filed a suit to collect compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Act No. 3428 , as amended by Act No. 3812 ) for the death of her son, Filomeno Managuit, a seaman. The defendant-appellee, Rio y Olabarrieta, Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts pleaded did not constitute a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, a decision which was upheld upon denial of a motion for reconsideration, leading to this appeal. The critical factual allegation in the complaint was that on May 27, 1949, at about 11:30 a.m., while the deceased was on board the M/S “Pilar II” as a seaman, he jumped into the water to retrieve his own two-peso bill and, as a consequence, drowned.
ISSUE
Whether the facts alleged in the complaint, particularly in its paragraph 5, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the complaint, holding that the facts pleaded were insufficient to constitute a cause of action. The test for sufficiency is whether, based on the alleged facts, a judgment can be rendered against the defendant. To entitle the plaintiff to compensation, it was essential to aver that the seaman was engaged in the work assigned to him by the defendant at the time of the incident. The mere allegation that he was “on board” the vessel “as such seaman” does not necessarily mean he was performing his duties; he could have been playing or relaxing, especially given the time (11:30 a.m.) and the personal nature of the item retrieved (his own two-peso bill). The Court inferred from common knowledge that cleaning work is done early in the morning, and other tasks would be underway by 11:30 a.m. The dropping and retrieval of a personal bill suggested the seaman was not at work and that the vessel was likely docked or anchored. Therefore, the complaint lacked the necessary averment that the accident occurred while the seaman was performing his assigned work. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within fifteen days from notice of the remand of the record to the trial court.