OCEAN BUILDERS VS. SPS.
CUBACUB  CA – reversed, stating that Hao’s failure to bring Bladimir to a better-
April 13, 2011| Carpio-Morales, J. | Elements of a Tort
Digester: Dungo, Claudine
SUMMARY: Bladimir Cubacub, an employee of Ocean Builders Construction Corp.
was afflicted with chicken pox and was advised by the petitioner, the company’s
general manager Dennis Hao to rest for three days in the barracks. Bladimir’s
condition worsened and was brought to Caybiga Community Hospital, which did
not have the facilities needed to treat him. He was transferred to QCGH where he
died. Bladimir’s parents instituted a case for negligence against Dennis Hao,
stating that his inability to perform his duty and bring Bladimir to a better hospital
was what caused his death. The Supreme Court held that Hao was not guilty of
negligence since he had provided what he believed was necessary assistance to
Bladimir given the situation.
DOCTRINE: Elements of an actionable conduct are: 1. duty, 2. Breach, 3. Injury, 4.
proximate causation
FACTS:
 Bladimir Cubacub was employed as a maintenance man by petitioner
company Ocean Builders Construction Corp.
 On April 9. 1995 he was afflicted with chicken pox and was told by Dennis
Hao, the general manager to rest in the barracks for 3 days.
 Three days later, Bladimir asked his co-worker to accompany him home.
Hao gave him P1000 and ordered Bladimir’s co-worker to bring him to the
nearest hospital.
 Bladimir was brought to Caybiga Community Hospital, and was later
transferred to Quezon City General Hospital by his parents and a friend, Dr.
Hermes Frias.
 He eventually died. QCGH stated his cause of death as cardio-respiratory
arrest with antecedent cause as Pneumonia. Dr. Frias recorded his death
due to cardiac arrest, multiple organ system failure, septicemia and
chicken pox.
 Sps. Cubacub instituted a case in the RTC against Ocean Builders and Hao,
stating they were guilty of negligence for not bringing Bladimir to a better
hospital.
 RTC- dismissed complaint, stating that Hao was not under obligation to
bring Bladimir to better tertiary hospitals assuming that Bladimir died of
chicken pox aggravated by pneumonia or some other complications due to
lack of adequate facilities at the hospital, the same cannot be attributed to
Hao.
equipped hospital violated Article 161 of the labor code.
◦ “ART. 161. Assistance of employer.—It shall be the duty of any
employer to provide all the necessary assistance to ensure the
adequate and immediate medical and dental attendance and
treatment to an injured or sick employee in case of emergency.”
Issue: Whether Hao and Ocean Builders are liable for the death of Bladimir due to
Hao’s inability to bring Bladimir to a better hospital? – No
 To prosecute an action anchored on tors, the ff. must be present:
1. duty
2. breach
3. injury
4. proximate causation
 Sps. Cubacub insist that it was Hao’s duty to
 Hao’s duty was to provide all the necessary assistance to ensure the
adequate and immediate medical treatment to Bladimir, according to Art.
161 of the Labor Code.
 The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code do not enlighten what
“adequate and immediate” medical assistance means in relation to an
“emergency.” The determination of what it means is left to an employer,
except when a full-time nurse or physician is available as required.
 Ocean Builders only has 20 employees which is below 50, the minimum
required for it to be mandatory to hire a nurse.
 As found by the RTC, Hao/s advide for Bladimir to take a 3-day rest and
then brought him later to a hospital constituted “adequate and immediate
medical assistance.”
 Hao does not seem to have a medical background and may not be
expected to have known that Bladimir needed to be brought to a hospital
with better facilities. Chicken pox is self-limiting.
 Negligence of Hao cannot be considered the proximate cause of the death
since proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by an efficient interveneing cause produces an injury, and
without which, the result would not have occurred.
 An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act orfailure to act,
whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission
played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or
 damage, and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a
reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission
IN FINE, petitioner company and its co-petitioner manager Dennis Hao are not
guilty of negligence. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision
of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.