d2015member

Afable v. Singer Sewing Machine Company (1933) Vickers, J. Leopoldo Madlangbayan was a collector for the Singer Sewing Machine Company in San Franciso del Monte (just outside Manila) o He was supposed to be living in this district, according to the records of the company o He worked on commission of 8% of all collections made by him In reality, Madlangbayan moved to Teodora Alonso Street without notifying his company. One Sunday afternoon, Madlangbayan was riding a bicycle. o He was on his way home after making collections in San Francisco. o Accdg to company policy, if one made collections on a Sunday, they had to remit to the company the next morning. While riding this bike, he was run over on a street corner by a truck. Madlangbayan died. o The truck was driven by Vitaliano Sumoay. The truck driver was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. Later on, the widow and children of Madlangbayan filed an action to recover from Singer Sewing some burial expenses and compensation (under Act 3428, as amended by Act 3812) o Act 3428 is an Act prescribing the compensation to be received by employees for injuries, death, illness, etc Singer Sewing denied the allegations. o Said that before this action, the family already obtained a judgment against the driver o That when Madlangbayan died, he was violating an ordinance of the City of Manila which prohibits work on Sunday o And that Act 3428 is unconsti because it denies the equal protection of the law and impairs the obligation of the contract between the thw Sewing company and Madlangbayan o The said act deprives the CFI of their probate jurisdiction over the estate of deceased persons

Issue: Is the company liable to pay the family? Held: No. He changed his residence without informing the company, used a bike the company did not furnish nor require, and made collections on a Sunday that the company also did not require. All these he did at his own risk and not in pursuance of his employment. Ratio:

Madlangbayan died on Nov 16, 1930. Act 3812 was approved on Dec 8, 1930. o Therefore, it is Act 3428 that applies. Act 3428 says: When any employee receives a personal injury from any accident due to in the pursuance of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by such employment or the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in the sums and to the persons hereinafter specified. The phrase due to and in the pursuance of used in Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 to arising out of and in the course of. o Accdg to Mueller v. Industrial Board: The words arising out of refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words in the course of refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment, but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workmans employment of incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. o Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. This does not mean that an employee cannot recover for injuries suffered while on the way to and from work. o That depends on the nature of his employment. o In this case, if Madlangbayan had been killed while going from house to house in San Francisco while collecting, the family would have the primacie right to recover. The family cite the syllabus in a certain Stacys case but that case differs from this one. o Stacy was drowned by reason of breaking through the ice of Colburns Pond while of his way home from work. o There was no other convenient way of going home but by crossing this pond. o Court says that the pond was in the control of the employer and that crossing over it upon the ice was the reasonable and customary way for to reach his home, and that he and other employees who lived in the same direction crossed by this way regularly, warranted the further finding that the injury occurred in the course of the employment. o Also, it also could have been found that the death of the employee was due to his employment as a contributing proximate cause, incidental to the nature of the work in which he was engaged. The court said that Stacys case was distinguishable from Fumiciellos case o Fumiciello was employed by Lathrop & Shea, who were doing some contract work for a railroad company near Middlefield. o He lived about one mile west where he was employed, and it was necessary for him to pass over the tracks of that railroad company to go from his work to his home. o While going home, Fumiciello crossed the railroad track where he was struck by a train and killed.

d2015member

The court decided that it was necessary for him to pass over the railroad but it formed no part of the employers plant, nor was it connected to the plant, nor was it in their control. In this case, Madlangbayan was going from work in his own conveyance. Accdg to Indemnity Co v. Dinkins (and other cases): Injury received in the course of employment means it must be shown that the injury originated in the work, and that it was the employee received this while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs of the employer. Accdg to Edwards v. Wingham: Since it was no part of the employees duty to ride home on a bicycle, the accident did not arise in the course of his employment. Also, Madlangbayan did not notify the company of his change in address, so it did not know that he was living in Manila. o Also, the company did not require him to work on a Sunday o It did not give/require its employees to use bicycles Those are addtl reasons to say that the accident was not due to and pursuance of the employment If he saw fit to change his residence and to make use of a bicycle, he did so at his own risk. If he made collections on Sunday, he did not do so in pursuance of his employment, and his employer is not liable for any injury. o

Petition denied.