MORALES, MARIVIC A. Case No.

16

Labor Law II Block A

COMPANIA MARITIMA vs. ERNESTA CABAGNOT

G.R. No. L-1067 April 29, 1960

FACTS:

Compaia Maritima contracted with the Pablo Velez Special Watchmens Agency to give
security to certain officers when a strike was staged by the Marine Officers Guild.Among the
members was Dionisio Hio, agency, who was found floating near the side of the M/V BASILAN
along the gangway of which he was assigned for duty, the morning after they were invited to
have some drinks at the house of the Chief Engineer.

Upon claim for compensation made by the widow, Workmens Compensation Commission
declared Compaia Maritima as the employer and ordered to pay the survivors. The company,
however, claims that it never had any employer-employee relationship with the deceased due to
the absence of written employment contract between them and, also, that the deceased was but a
casual employee whose services were engaged only for the duration of the strike and, therefore,
not entitled to compensation.

ISSUE:

May a person can be considered an employee of another on despite the absence of a written
employment contract between them

RULING:

Yes, in the absence of a written employment, there can still be an employer-employee

relationship. While it is true that no written employment contract between the petitioner and the
deceased was presented in evidence, it is not disputed that the petitioner company owns the
vessel where the deceased was assigned as gangwayman, and it was found by the Commission
that the salary of the deceased was paid directly from the funds of petitioner. From these
circumstances, it would appear that at the time of the accident the deceased was under
petitioners employ.

Furthermore, it is clear from section 39 (b) of the Workmens Compensation Act that for an
employee to be excluded from the term laborer or employee under the Act, his employment
must be purely casual and is not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer.
And the casual service that the law speaks of must be construed, interpreted and concluded by
the circumstance of whether or not the aforesaid service is related with the occupation or
business of the employer. In the case at bar, the duties of the deceased were that of giving
security not only to the cargo of the vessel but also to the lives of its officers and crew, and they
are, undoubtedly, in connection with the business of the petitioner. Without security, any shipping
company could not possibly go on with its maritime business.