G.R. No. L-4466 - OCTOBER 1952 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4466October 30, 1952 Elena Amedo vs. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. G.R. No. L-4630October 30, 1952 Nicomedes Suller vs. Primitivo S. Perez C.A. No. 6119-ROctober 29, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Isaac G.R. No. L-3970October 29, 1952 Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co., et al. vs. Hermogenes Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-4441October 29, 1952 Rosa Bracamonte, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-4625October 29, 1952 Eugenio Evangelista, et al. vs. Brigida Soriano G.R. No. L-4835October 29, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Andres Garcia G.R. No. L-5187October 29, 1952 Mora Sanna, et al. vs. Mora Ajiria, et al. G.R. No. L-5188October 29, 1952 Alicia S. Gonzales vs. Asia Life Insurance Company G.R. No. L-5298October 29, 1952 Philippine National Bank vs. Pedro Relativo, et al. G.R. No. L-5628October 29, 1952 Manila Railroad Company vs. El Tribunal Industrial, et al. G.R. No. L-4992October 27, 1952 Alfredo Miranda vs. David Guanzon, et al. G.R. No. L-5221October 27, 1952 Benito R. Ferrer vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. G.R. No. L-3751October 25, 1952 Visayan Distributors, Inc. vs. Mariano R. Flores, et al. G.R. No. L-4032October 25, 1952 In Re: Chua Pieng. Chua Pieng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-4603October 25, 1952 In Re: Leona Singson. Manuel Singson vs. Emilia Florentino, et al. A.C. No. 126October 24, 1952 In Re: Tranquilino Rovero G.R. No. L-4397October 24, 1952 In Re: Delfin Limtao. Delfin Limtao vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-4614October 24, 1952 Juan Deliva vs. Jose T. Surtida, et al. G.R. No. L-5138October 24, 1952 Geronimo P. Vibal vs. Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. G.R. No. L-5424October 24, 1952 Republic of the Philippines vs. Querube C. Makalintal, et al. G.R. No. L-4549October 22, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Capistrano G.R. No. L-3784October 17, 1952 Ernest Berg vs. Magdalena Estate, Inc. G.R. No. L-4665October 17, 1952 Robustiano Caragao, et al. vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. G.R. No. L-4725October 15, 1952 In Re: Yu Lo. Yu Lo vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3645October 8, 1952 J. Antonio Araneta, et al. vs. Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-4364October 7, 1952 Felipe B. Pagkanluñgan vs. Manuel de La Fuente, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Elena Amedo vs. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. Nicomedes Suller vs. Primitivo S. Perez People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Isaac Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co., et al. vs. Hermogenes Reyes, et al. Rosa Bracamonte, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Eugenio Evangelista, et al. vs. Brigida Soriano People of the Philippines vs. Andres Garcia Mora Sanna, et al. vs. Mora Ajiria, et al. Alicia S. Gonzales vs. Asia Life Insurance Company Philippine National Bank vs. Pedro Relativo, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. El Tribunal Industrial, et al. Alfredo Miranda vs. David Guanzon, et al. Benito R. Ferrer vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. Visayan Distributors, Inc. vs. Mariano R. Flores, et al. In Re: Chua Pieng. Chua Pieng vs. Republic of the Philippines In Re: Leona Singson. Manuel Singson vs. Emilia Florentino, et al. In Re: Tranquilino Rovero In Re: Delfin Limtao. Delfin Limtao vs. Republic of the Philippines Juan Deliva vs. Jose T. Surtida, et al. Geronimo P. Vibal vs. Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Querube C. Makalintal, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Capistrano Ernest Berg vs. Magdalena Estate, Inc. Robustiano Caragao, et al. vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. In Re: Yu Lo. Yu Lo vs. Republic of the Philippines J. Antonio Araneta, et al. vs. Rural Progress Administration Felipe B. Pagkanluñgan vs. Manuel de La Fuente, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952
ELENA AMEDO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.,defendant-appellees.
Cecilio I. Lim and Antonio Castro for appellant.
Almario and Gamelo for appellee.
PADILLA,J.:
This is a suit to collect compensation under Act No. 3428, known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 3812. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts pleaded therein do not constitute a cause of action. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the facts set out therein are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this appeal.
The only question is whether paragraph 5 of the complaint which reads as follows:
That on May 27, 1949 at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning, while the deceased Filomeno Managuit was on board the M/S "Pilar II", as such seaman, he jumped into the water to retrieve a 2-peso bill belonging to him, and as a consequence of which, he was drowned;
is sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The test on sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint is whether upon such facts a judgment may be rendered against the defendant. To entitle the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased seaman who was wholly dependent upon him, to a compensation award, it is at least essential to aver that the seaman was engaged in the work assigned to him on board the M/S "Pilar II" owned, run and operated by the defendant and while at such work he dropped the two-peso bill belonging to him and to retrieve it he leaped into the sea and was drowned. The averment that he was on board the M/S "Pilar II" as seaman does not mean and convey the idea that he was engaged in the work assigned to him for he might be playing or relaxing, taking into consideration the asserted time the fatal accident took place, to wit: 11:30 a.m. and the averred fact that the two-peso bill dropped into the water belonged to him. It is of common knowledge that steamers are washed and cleaned early in the morning. At 11:30 in the morning, the seamen or the crew, if working, must be doing other kinds of labor. The dropping or blowing of the bill into the water implies the ides that the seaman was not at work but must have been playing with it. And the determination to retrieve it suggests also the thought that the steamer was not running but was docked or anchored. So to enable a court of competent jurisdiction to render a judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings, an averment that the seaman was performing the work assigned to him on board the M/S "Pilar II" owned, run and operated by the defendant, in addition to the other material averments pleaded in the complaint, is essential and necessary. Lack of such averment in the complaint renders it insufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The order appealed from dismissing the complaint is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased seaman, to file an amended complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice by the clerk of the trial court that the record of this case had been remanded to and received by the trial court, without costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ.,concur.