RUTH JIMENEZ

vs.
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
G.R. No. 58176. March 23, 1984

FACTS:

This is a petition to review the decision of respondent Employees Compensation

Commission (ECC) dated August 20, 1981 in ECC Case No. 1587, which affirmed the
decision of respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), denying
petitioners claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.
After rendering service for one year, he was promoted to the rank of constable second
class then on he was again promoted to the rank of sergeant
he and his wife boarded a bus. While on their way, Sgt. Jimenez, who was seated on the
left side of the bus, fell down from the bus because of the sudden stop of the vehicle. As
a result, he was confined at the Cagayan Provincial Hospital for about one (1) week, and
thereafter, released.
Unfortunately, his ailment continued and became more serious. On May 12, 1980, he
died in his house at Anulung, Cagayan, at about 9:00 oclock in the evening. He was
barely 35 years old at the time of his death. The cause of death, as found by the doctors,
is "bronchogenic carcinoma" which is a malignant tumor of the lungs.
Petitioner filed a claim for death benefits under PD No. 626 with GSIS which was denied
for having no causal link on his duties. The said decision was affirmed by respondent
Employees Compensation Commission in its decision dated August 21, 1981

ISSUE:

WON, the petitioners husbands death is not compensable for the reason that the
injury/sickness that caused his death is not due to the circumstances of the employment
or in the performance of the duties and responsibilities of said employment?

RULING:

Yes, to establish compensability under the said theory, the claimant must show proof of
work-connection. Impliedly, the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence,
which means such relevant evidence to support a decision (Ang Tibay v. The Court of
Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc., 69 Phil. 635) or clear and convincing
evidence. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the strict rules of evidence are

1
not applicable in claims for compensation. Respondents however insist on evidence
which would establish direct causal relation between the disease rectal cancer and the
employment of the deceased. Such a strict requirement which even medical experts
cannot support considering the uncertainty of the nature of the disease would negate
the principle of the liberality in the matter of evidence, Apparently, what the law merely
requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. This kind of
interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of
the law as embodied in Article 4 of the new Labor Code which states that all doubts in
the implementation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.

". . . As the agents charged by the law to implement the social justice guarantee secured
by both 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, respondents should adopt a more liberal attitude
in deciding claims for compensation especially when there is some basis in the facts
inferring a work-connection. This should not be confused with the presumption of
compensability and theory of aggravation under the Workmens Compensation Act.
While these doctrines may have been abandoned under the New Labor Code (the
constitutionality of such abrogation may still be challenged), it is significant that the
liberality of the law, in general, still subsists. . .."

The sweeping conclusion of the respondent Employees Compensation Commission to

the effect that the cause of the bronchogenic carcinoma of the deceased was due to his
being a smoker and not in any manner connected with his work as a soldier, is not in
accordance with medical authorities nor with the facts on record. No certitude can arise
from a position of uncertainty.

2
JOSE SONGCO, ROMEO CIPRES, and AMANCIO MANUEL
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER FLAVIO AGUAS,
and F.E. ZUELLIG (M), INC
G.R. Nos. 50999-51000. March 23, 1990

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to modify the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-20840-78-T entitled, "Jose Songco and
Romeo Cipres, Complainants-Appellants, v. F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc., Respondent-Appellee"
and NLRC Case No. RN-IV-20855-78-T entitled, "Amancio Manuel, Complainant-
Appellant, v. F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc., Respondent-Appellee," which dismissed the appeal of
petitioners herein and in effect affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering
private respondent to pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to their one month
salary (exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc.) for every year of service.
The Collective Bargaining Agreements between Zuelig and the union of which Songco, et
al. were members contained the following provision: "Any employee who is separated
from employment due to old age, sickness, death or permanent lay-off, not due to the
fault of said employee, shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an
amount equivalent to one (1) month's salary per year of service.
The Labor Arbiter ordered Zuelig to pay Songco et al., separation pay equivalent to their
one month salary (exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc.) for every year of service
with the company.
The National Labor Relations Commission sustained the Arbiter.

ISSUE:

WON, not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly
salary of Songco, et al. for the purpose of computing their separation pay?

RULING:

No, In the computation of backwages and separation pay, account must be taken not
only of the basic salary of the employee, but also of the transportation and emergency
living allowances. Even if the commissions were in the form of incentives or
encouragement, so that the salesman would be inspired to put a little more industry on
jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for
services rendered which contributed to the increase of income of the

3
employee. Commission is the recompense compensation or reward of an agent,
salesman, executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is
calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the
principal. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of
remuneration for services rendered demonstrate that commissions are part of Songco,
et al's wage or salary.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not receive any basic
salary, but depend on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an
employer-employee relationship exists. If the opposite view is adopted, i.e., that
commissions do not form part of the wage or salary, then in effect, we will be saying
that this kind of salesmen do not receive any salary and, therefore, not entitled to
separation pay in the event of discharge from employment. This narrow interpretation
is not in accord with the liberal spirit of the labor laws, and considering the purpose of
separation pay which is, to alleviate the difficulties which confront a dismissed
employee thrown to the streets to face the harsh necessities of life.

4
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC
vs.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA)

G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988

FACTS:

A Chief Officer of a ship was killed in an accident in Japan. The widow filed a complaint
for charges against the Eastern Shipping Lines with POEA, based on a Memorandum
Circular No. 2, issued by the POEA which stipulated death benefits and burial for the
family of overseas workers. ESL questioned the validity of the memorandum circular as
violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. It contends that no
authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation; and even with
such authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which,
under the principle, is not subject to delegation. Nevertheless, POEA assumed
jurisdiction and decided the case.

ISSUE:

WON, the Issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-delegation of

powers.

RULING:

No, SC held that there was a valid delegation of powers.

The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive
Order No. 797. ... "The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as hereunder
provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of
the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA)."

It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be
enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a
prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by
the legislature to the delegate. The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative
powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the
proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national
legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies

5
the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is
called the "power of subordinate legislation."

With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a
statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as
supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of
Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.

6
ASIA STEEL CORPORATION
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND ISMAEL CARBAJOSA

G.R. No. L-7636, June 27, 1955

FACTS:

Petition to review the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission approving

the award of its referee in favor of the laborer Ismael Carbajosa, against his employer
Asia Steel Corporation.
It appears that on April 16, 1951, while working in said Corporation's steel factory in
Grace Park, Manila, Carbajosa tapped the belt of a running machine to tighten it, but his
hand was caught accidentally by the belt, he stumbled down and his two feet were so
seriously injured, they had to be amputated at the Chinese General Hospital where he
was rushed immediately after the mishap. Hospitalization were paid by the corporation.
Thereafter Carbajosa claimed for compensation. The referee, having found that he was
employed as apprentice, and that the accident arose out of employment, required the
Asia Steel Corporation to indemnify in the total sum of two thousand two hundred
forty-six pesos and forty centavos (P2,246.40) and to pay the costs.
The instant petition for review rests on two major propositions: (1) Ismael Carbajosa
was not an employee or laborer and (2) the accident was "occasioned by" his "own fault
and negligence".

ISSUE:

WON, Ismael Carbajosa was not an employee or laborer and the accident was
"occasioned by" his "own fault and negligence".

RULING:

The existence of employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation

without which an indemnity is unauthorized. It is often difficult of determination,
because purposely made so by employers bent on evading liability under the
Compensation Acts. Hence, if the object of the law is to be accomplished with a liberal
construction, the creation of the relationship should not be adjudged strictly in
accordance with technical legal rules, but rather according to the actualities and realities
of industrial or business practice. A laborer is told to work for the establishment by the

7
person-in-charge, who in turn represented he had consulted with the manager. If the
by-laws of the corporation had provided that no laborer may be hired unless with the
written consent of the board of directors, would it be consonant with justice to deny
such laborer compensation for injuries, upon the ground of lack of written authority? If
so, a loophole has thereby been created in the Workmen's Compensation Law. That is
perhaps the reason why apparent authority has been considered enough, what with the
principles of estoppel lending persuasive support.

There is further circumstance, implying ratification of the employment, that the acting
manager of the corporation Atty. Mercado directed the payment by the corporation of
Carbajosa's hospital expenses, amounting to P2,000.00. Mercado's explanation that he
did it out of pity, was not, and could not be accepted since the Asia Steel Corporation is
not a charitable institution.

8
ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL
vs.
LEONORA FABRIGAR

G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961

FACTS:

Santiago Fabrigar had been employed as a janitor-messenger of the respondent Iloilo

Chinese Commercial School. His work includes sweeping and scrubbing the floors,
cleaning the classrooms and the school premises, and other janitorial chores. On March
11, 1956, in preparation for the graduation, he carried desks and chairs from the
classroom to the auditorium, set curtains and worked harder and faster than usual.
Although he felt shortness of breath and did not feel well, he continued working. On
March 13, he spat blood and stopped working. From April 29 to May 15, 1956 , he
received treatment for far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis and for heart disease
from Dr. Quirico Villareal.
On June 28, 1956, Santiago Fabrigar died of beriberi adult. His common-law wife,
Leonora Fabrigar with his heirs filed claim for compensation with the Workmens
Compensation Commission wherein it was alleged tht the cause of death was
pulmonary tuberculosis contracted during and as a result of his employment as
janitor.
The hearing officer denied the claim and dismissed the case. He concluded that there
was no causal connection between the cause of death and the said employment. The
decision was appealed. The Workmens compensation Commission concluded that he
had been suffering from such disease and his employment as a janitor aggravated his
pre-existing illness. And although there was a discrepancy between the cause of death
beriberi adult and the testimony of Dr. Villareal, the latter was given credence.
The commission ordered Chinese Commercial School, Inc. to pay the claimant. The
decision was appealed. Petitioner contended that the Commission erred in finding that
the cause of death was tuberculosis and as a result of his employment; holding that the
petitioner was the employer of the deceased.

ISSUE:

WON, there is an employee-employer relationship when the former is employed and

paid by its Board of Directors that would warrant the heirs of the deceased employer
compensation under Workmens compensation law?

RULING:

9
 Yes, there was an employee-employer relationship between the respondent school and
the deceased. Although it is true that the Board of Directors, the Chinese Chamber of
Commerce was the one who pays for the janitorial service of the school, it was still the
latter who exercised supervision and control over the performance of the deceased.
And the court held that power to control employees conduct is the most important test
of employer-employee relation. The decision appealed from was dismissed.

10
SEVILLA
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-41182-3 April 16, 1988

FACTS:

A contract by and between Noguera and Tourist World Service (TWS), represented by
Canilao, wherein TWS leased the premises belonging to Noguera as branch office of
TWS. When the branch office was opened, it was run by appellant Sevilla payable to
TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Sevilla, 4% was to go to
Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the TWS.
Later, TWS was informed that Sevilla was connected with rival firm, and since the
branch office was losing, TWS considered closing down its office.
On January 3, 1962, the contract with appellee for the use of the branch office premises
was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was January 31, 1962, the appellees no
longer used it. Because of this, Canilao, the secretary of TWS, went over to the branch
office, and finding the premises locked, he padlocked the premises. When neither
appellant Sevilla nor any of his employees could enter, a complaint was filed by the
appellants against the appellees. TWS insisted that Sevilla was a mere employee, being
the branch manager of its branch office and that she had no say on the lease executed
with the private respondent, Noguera.

ISSUE:

WON, ER-EE relationship exists between Sevilla and TWS?

RULING:

The records show that petitioner, Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private
respondent TWS. In the first place, under the contract of lease, she had bound herself in
solidum as and for rental payments, an arrangement that would belie claims of a
master-servant relationship. That does not make her an employee of TWS, since a true
employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employers
business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof.

In the second place, when the branch office was opened, the same was run by the
appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of

11
Sevilla. Thus, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of TWS. Sevilla in
pursuing the business, relied on her own capabilities.It is further admitted that Sevilla
was not in the companys payroll. For her efforts, she retained 4% in commissions from
airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to TWS. Unlike an employee, who earns a fixed
salary, she earned compensation in fluctuating amount depending on her booking
successes.

The fact that Sevilla had been designated branch manager does not make her a TWS
employee. It appears that Sevilla is a bona fide travel agent herself, and she acquired an
interest in the business entrusted to her. She also had assumed personal obligation for
the operation thereof, holding herself solidary liable for the payment of rentals.

12