10.

Viana vs Alejandro Al- lagadan and Piga

Gr.no. L-8967 May 31, 1956

FACTS:

The fishing sailboat “Magkapatid,owned by Anastacio Viana, had a collision with a U.S.
Navy vessel and sunk to the waters. Alejandro AlLagadan, a member of the crew the for
mer disappeared with the craft. Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordered Anasta
cio Viana to pay the claimants, Alejo AlLagadan and Filomena Piga. Petioner said, how
ever, that this case does not fall within the purview of Act No. 3428, because Alejandro
AlLagadan was, at the time of his death, industrial partner, not his employee. He further
contended that they were in a share basisowner of the vessel, on one hand receives on
ehalf of the earnings of the sailboat, the other half is divided pro rata among the membe
rs of the crew. The trial referee said, as well as the Workmen’s Compensation Commiss
ion that there was an employeremployee relation between the Respondent and the dec
eased, Alejandro AlLagadan, and the share which the deceased received at the end of
each trip was in the nature of ‘wages’ which is defined under section 39 of the Compens
ation Act. This is so because such share could be reckoned in terms of money. In other
words, there existed the relation of employer and employee between the Respondent a
nd Alejandro Al-Lagadan at the time of the latter’s death.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mere fact that such share could be reckoned in terms of money, suffi
ced to characterize him as an employee of another.

HELD:

No, the Court did not share with the Trial Referee and Commission’s view. However,pet
itioner’s theory to the effect that the deceased was his partner, not an employee, simply
because he (the deceased) shared in the profits, not in the losses cannot be accepted. I
n determining the existence of employeremployee relationship, the following elements a
re generally considered, namely:(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2)
the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;(4) the power to control the employee
s’ conduct .although the latter is the most important element (35 Am. Jur. 445). Assumin
g that the share received by the deceased could partake of the nature of wages and that
the second element, therefore, exists in the case at bar, the record does not contain an
y specific data regarding the third and fourth elements.

Furthermore, the report contained that the patron selects and engages the crew, and als
o, that the members thereof are subject to his control and may be dismissed by him. To
put it differently, the literal import of said report is open to the conclusion that the crew h
as a contractual relation, not with the owner of the vessel, but with the patron, and that t
he latter, not the former, is either their employer or their partner.

The case was remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, for further proc
eedings in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court.