FEDERICO MANSAL vs P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

Facts:
Mansal worked under a contractor by the name of Pablo Manansala as a lumber stacker. While working
for the defendant company, he suffered injuries in the middle finger of his right hand while stacking
lumber.

He filed an appeal from a judgment after the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed his action for
compensation for injuries received by him while working as a laborer in defendant's lumber yard.

The Gocheco lumber contented that he was not employed directly by the company. And that Manansala
and his group did not work for the defendant alone; they also did similar work for other lumber yards.
plaintiff-appellant was a purely casual laborer, employed by what is known in law as an independent
contractor, Pablo Manansala, who had direction and control of plaintiff-appellant without interference
on the part of the defendant.

Issue:
Whether or not employer shall pay compensation when an employee suffers personal injury from any
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Ruling:
Yes. Workmen's Compensation Act provides that when an employee suffers personal injury from any
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment his employer shall pay compensation. It also
defines the word Laborer which is used as a synonym of 'Employee' and means every person who has
entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. It
does not include a person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the
occupation or business of the employer.

Even though Pablo Manansala is an independent contractor. This is not determinative of the liability or
non-liability of the employer for the physical injuries received by the laborer.

It will be noted that in order that an employer may not be responsible for an injury to a laborer it is
necessary that the "employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the occupation or
business of the employer." Casual means occasional, coming without regularity. The work is purely
casual when it is not a part of the business in which the employer is engaged.

The piling up of lumber is work directly connected with the business of a lumber yard therefore, an
ordinary part of the Work in a lumber yard.

The trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff-appellant's employment was purely casual and not for
the purposes of the business of the defendant company and the judgment in relation thereto must be
reversed. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation amounting to P321.43. The judgment appealed from
is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellee is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of
P321.43, with costs.