Scribd
Upload
65 views2 pages

Workmen's Compensation Ruling

1. Pedro Mamador died in an accident while riding in a truck owned by his employer, Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc. (MIMA), on the way to the mining camp. MIMA argued it was not liable to pay compensation to Mamador's heirs due to his alleged negligence in riding the truck. 2. The court ruled that merely riding in the haulage truck did not constitute negligence. MIMA's rule prohibiting riders did not relate to personal safety. There was no evidence of "notorious negligence" by Mamador that would preclude his heirs' compensation claim. 3. The criminal prosecution and settlement with the truck driver also did not bar the compensation claim against MIMA

Uploaded by

Alter Nate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views2 pages

Workmen's Compensation Ruling

1. Pedro Mamador died in an accident while riding in a truck owned by his employer, Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc. (MIMA), on the way to the mining camp. MIMA argued it was not liable to pay compensation to Mamador's heirs due to his alleged negligence in riding the truck. 2. The court ruled that merely riding in the haulage truck did not constitute negligence. MIMA's rule prohibiting riders did not relate to personal safety. There was no evidence of "notorious negligence" by Mamador that would preclude his heirs' compensation claim. 3. The criminal prosecution and settlement with the truck driver also did not bar the compensation claim against MIMA

Uploaded by

Alter Nate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R.No.L-8110 June 30, 1956 | Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc.

v Workmen’s Compensation
Commission | Bengzon, J | Lansangan, J.

Facts: 2. MIMA contends that the criminal case


1. At 6am, Pedro Mamador and other against Macunat constituted a choice to
laborers boarded a truck owned by sue the 3rd person which therefore
petitioner (MIMA) and driven by released MIMA.
Procopio Macunat on the way to the 3. However, the criminal case was not a
mining camp in Talantunan. suit for damages against the 3rd person.
2. The truck tried to overtake another Furthermore, as per Nava v Inchausti
truck on the company road but turned Co., indemnity granted in a criminal
over and hit a coconut tree instead. prosecution of the other person does
3. Mamador died and others were injured not affect the liability of the employer
as a result. Procopio Macunat was to pay compensation.
prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced W/N respondent heirs’ claim is barred due to
to indemnify Mamador’s heirs. an amicable settlement between them and
Issues: Macunat. –NO.
[Minor] W/N the proceedings which followed 1. The settlement was an affidavit where,
before the Commission (WCC) were invalid for Php150, Mamador’s widow would
since MIMA was not given the opportunity to forgive Macunat and not to bring him to
cross-examine the opposing witness. –NO. authorities to be prosecuted.
1. Records show that pursuant to the 2. Court said that this does not constitute
request of WCC to investigate the case, an election of one of the remedies
the Public Defender of Boac, (against 3rd persons as per Sec 6) as all
Marinduque notified Geronimo Ma. Coll the widow promised was to forego
and MIMA’s general manager Eric Lenze Macunat’s criminal prosecution.
to appear before him. [MAIN] W/N there was “notorious negligence”
2. They were given prior notice and were (gross negligence) on Pedro Mamador’s part
allowed to examine the records of the which would preclude recovery. –NO.
case as well as to rebut it and to cross- 1. MIMA had a prohibition against
examine the witnesses against MIMA as laborers riding the haulage trucks and
per Sec 48, Act 3428* (see note at end). argues that violation of such constitutes
W/N respondent heris’ claim is barred by Sec 6 negligence.
of the Workmen’s Compensation law because 2. Court said otherwise. Mere riding on a
Macunat was prosecuted and required to haulage truck is not negligence per se.
indemnify the heirs of Mamador. Violation of a rule promulgated by a
1. Sec 6 (Liability of third parties) states Commission or board may be possible
that in case an employee suffers an evidence of negligence.
injury for which compensation is due 3. Mamador can’t be said to have acted
under by any other person besides his with negligence either since the
employer, it shall be optional with such prohibition imposed by MIMA didn’t
injured employee to either claim have to do anything with the personal
compensation from his employer or to safety of the riders.
sue such other person for damages. Ruling:
3. Petition is DENIED.
G.R.No.L-8110 June 30, 1956 | Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc. v Workmen’s Compensation
Commission | Bengzon, J | Lansangan, J.

*If I’m not mistaken, this pertains to ACT NO.


3428 – AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE
COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY
EMPLOYEES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, DEATH
OR ILLNESS CONTRACTED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES.

You might also like