LEGAL NOTE 0068: WHEN WILL AN EMPLOYER BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF ITS EMPLOYEE WHO DIED DUE TO AILMENT WHILE AT WORK?
SOURCE: OCEAN BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND/OR DENNIS HAO VS. SPOUSES ANTONIO AND ANICIA CUBACUB (G.R. NO. 150898, 13 APRIL 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) SUBJECTS: DAMAGE BASED ON TORT; WHETHER EMPLOYER IS LIABLE FOR DEATH OF EMPLOYEE. (BRIEF TITLE: OCEAN BUILDERS VS. SPOUSES CUBACUB).
DIGEST:
BLADIMIR BECAME SICK. HE REQUESTED THAT HE BE BROUGHT TO TARLAC. INSTEAD HIS EMPLOYER BROUGHT HIM TO A COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. THERE HE DIED. HIS PARENTS FILED CASE FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OCEAN BUILDER.. RTC DISMISSED CASE. CA REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT OCEAN BUILDERS HAS NO FULL TIME NURSE, VIOLATIVE OF THE LABOR CODE AND SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT HIM TO A BETTER HOSPITAL.
IS OCEAN BUILDERS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE?
NO. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IT HAS. IF PETITIONER’S MANAGER’S TESTIMONY IS TRUE, IT HAD ONLY SEVEN REGULAR EMPLOYEES AND 20 CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES ─ STILL SHORT OF THE MINIMUM 50 WORKERS THAT AN ESTABLISHMENT MUST HAVE FOR IT TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FULL-TIME REGISTERED NURSE.
ALSO, THE EMPLOYER HAS GIVEN ADEQUATE AND IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE WHEN ITS MANAGER ADVISED THE EMPLOYEE TO TAKE A 3-DAY REST AND LATER BROUGHT HIM TO THE NEAREST HOSPITAL.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS CASE?
IT IS A CASE FOR DAMAGES BASED ON TORTS, THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BEING MERELY INCIDENTAL.
At the onset, the Court notes that the present case is one for damages based on torts, the employer-employee relationship being merely incidental.
SINCE THIS IS A CASE BASED ON TORTS WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE PRESENT.
THERE ARE THREE: (1) DUTY; (2) BREACH; AND (3) INJURY AND PROXIMATE CAUSATION.
To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts, three elements must be present, viz: (1) duty (2) breach (3) injury and proximate causation.
IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING A SICK OR INJURED EMPLOYEE, WHAT IS THE DUTY OF EMPLOYER?
UNDER ART. 161 OF THE LABOR CODE, THE EMPLOYER MUST PROVIDE ALL THE NECESSARY ASSISTANCE TO ENSURE ADEQUATE AND IMMEDIATE MEDICAL AND DENTAL ATTENDANCE AND TREATMENT.
The assailed decision of the appellate court held that it was the duty of petitioners to provide adequate medical assistance to the employees under Art. 161 of the Labor Code, failing which a breach is committed.
Art. 161 of the Labor Code provides:
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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHAT MEDICAL SERVICES MUST THE EMPLOYER PROVIDE?
ART. 157 OF THE LABOR CODE PROVIDES:
Article 157. Emergency Medical and Dental Services. ─ It shall be the duty of every employer to furnish his employees in any locality with free medical and dental attendance and facilities consisting of:
(a) The services of a full-time registered nurse when the number of employees exceeds fifty (50) but not more than two hundred (200) except when the employer does not maintain hazardous workplaces, in which case, the services of a graduate first-aider shall be provided for the protection of workers, where no registered nurse is available. The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall provide by appropriate regulations, the services that shall be required where the number of employees does not exceed fifty (50) and shall determine by appropriate order, hazardous workplaces for purposes of this Article;
(b) The services of a full-time registered nurse, a part-time physician and dentist, and an emergency clinic, when the number of employees exceeds two hundred (200) but not more than three hundred (300); and
(c) The services of a full-time physician, dentist and a full-time registered nurse as well as a dental clinic and an infirmary or emergency hospital with one bed capacity for every one hundred (100) employees when the number of employees exceeds three hundred (300). (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the present case, there is no allegation that the company premises are hazardous. Neither is there any allegation on the number of employees the company has. If Hao’s testimony[1][4] would be believed, the company had only seven regular employees and 20 contractual employees ─ still short of the minimum 50 workers that an establishment must have for it to be required to have a full-time registered nurse.
Chicken pox is self-limiting. Hao does not appear to have a medical background. He may not be thus expected to have known that Bladimir needed to be brought to a hospital with better facilities than the CaybigaHospital, contrary to appellate court’s ruling.
ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN TORTS IS THAT NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE. WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE?
PROXIMATE CAUSE IS THAT WHICH, IN NATURAL AND CONTINUOUS SEQUENCE, UNBROKEN BY AN EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE, PRODUCES INJURY, AND WITHOUT WHICH, THE RESULT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.[2][5] AN INJURY OR DAMAGE IS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY AN ACT OR FAILURE 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.[3][6]
AT ALL EVENTS, the alleged negligence of Hao cannot be considered as the proximate cause of the death of Bladimir. Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which, the result would not have occurred.[4][5] An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or failure 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.[5][6]
Verily, the issue in this case is essentially factual in nature. The dissent, apart from adopting the appellate court’s findings, finds that Bladimir contracted chicken pox from a co-worker and Hao was negligent in not bringing that co-worker to the nearest physician, or isolating him as well. This finding is not, however, borne by the records. Nowhere in the appellate court’s or even the trial court’s decision is there any such definite finding that Bladimir contracted chicken pox from a co-worker. At best, the only allusion to another employee being afflicted with chicken pox was when Hao testified that he knew it to heal within three days as was the case of another worker, without reference, however, as to when it happened.[6][7]
On the issue of which of the two death certificates is more credible, the dissent, noting that Dr. Frias attended to Bladimir during his “last illness,” holds that the certificate which he issued ─ citing chicken pox as antecedent cause ─ deserves more credence.
There appears, however, to be no conflict in the two death certificates on the immediate cause of Bladimir’s death since both cite cardio-respiratory arrest due to complications ─ from pneumonia per QCGH, septicemia and chicken pox per Dr. Frias’. In fact, Dr. Frias admitted that the causes of death in both certificates were the same.[7][8]
Be that as it may, Dr. Frias could not be considered as Bladimir’s attending physician, he having merely ordered Bladimir’s transfer to the QCGH after seeing him at the CaybigaHospital. He thereafter left Bladimir to the care of doctors at QCGH, returning to Capas, Tarlac at 4 o’clock the following morning or eight hours after seeing Bladimir. As he himself testified upon cross-examination, he did not personally attend to Bladimir anymore once the latter was brought to the ICU at QCGH.[8][9]
THERE ARE TWO DEATH CERTIFICATES. ONE IS DULY REGISTERED AND THE OTHER IS NOT. WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE?
THE REGISTERED ONE BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND THE ENTRIES THEREIN ARE PRESUMED CORRECT.
It bears emphasis that a duly-registered death certificate is considered a public document and the entries therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce positive evidence establishing otherwise.[9][10] The QCGH death certificate was received by the City Civil Registrar on April 17, 1995. Not only was the certificate shown by positive evidence to be inaccurate. Its credibility, more than that issued by Dr. Frias, becomes more pronounced as note is taken of the fact that he was not around at the time of death.
[1][4] Vide TSN, Hearing on January 7, 1997, p. 8.
[2][5] Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132, Dec. 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 439.
[3][6] Ibid.
[4][5] Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132, Dec. 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 439.
[5][6] Ibid.
[6][7] Vide TSN, Hearing on January 7, 1997, p. 25.
[7][8] Vide TSN, Hearing on June 25, 1996, Direct Examination of Dr. Frias, records, p. 30.
[8][9] Vide, TSN, Hearing on June 25, 1996, id. at 35.
[9][10] Philamlife v. CA, 398 Phil. 599 (2000).
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 