0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
27 visualizzazioni1 pagina
Camilo was injured while working on a ship owned by United Philippines Lines, Inc. (UPLI) when a manhole cover accidentally fell and hit his head. UPLI provided Camilo with immediate medical attention for his injuries. Labor suits followed, with the court ordering UPLI to pay Camilo damages and attorney's fees. UPLI argued they were not obligated to pay because they provided prompt medical care, negating bad faith. However, the court ruled that under workmen's compensation laws, Camilo is entitled to damages and attorney's fees from UPLI regardless of any lack of bad faith, as this type of case is an exception under the Civil Code.
Camilo was injured while working on a ship owned by United Philippines Lines, Inc. (UPLI) when a manhole cover accidentally fell and hit his head. UPLI provided Camilo with immediate medical attention for his injuries. Labor suits followed, with the court ordering UPLI to pay Camilo damages and attorney's fees. UPLI argued they were not obligated to pay because they provided prompt medical care, negating bad faith. However, the court ruled that under workmen's compensation laws, Camilo is entitled to damages and attorney's fees from UPLI regardless of any lack of bad faith, as this type of case is an exception under the Civil Code.
Camilo was injured while working on a ship owned by United Philippines Lines, Inc. (UPLI) when a manhole cover accidentally fell and hit his head. UPLI provided Camilo with immediate medical attention for his injuries. Labor suits followed, with the court ordering UPLI to pay Camilo damages and attorney's fees. UPLI argued they were not obligated to pay because they provided prompt medical care, negating bad faith. However, the court ruled that under workmen's compensation laws, Camilo is entitled to damages and attorney's fees from UPLI regardless of any lack of bad faith, as this type of case is an exception under the Civil Code.
CAMILO A. ESGUERRA V. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES, INC., ET AL.
G.R. NO. 199932
Digested by: Geromo, Felix Louis T. (Torts and Damages) FACTS: (This is essentially a labor case, as to the civil aspect of this case it dwells merely on the entitlement of recovery to attorneys fees and cost of litigation by the petitioner.) Petitioner Camilo was a fitter on board the vessel M/V Jaco Triumph for a period of 9 months. On August 21, 2008, while the petitioner was welding wedges inside Hatch 5 of the vessel, a manhole cover accidentally fell and hit the petitioner on the head. The impact of the blow caused him pain on his neck and shoulders despite him wearing a protective helmet. He was given immediate medical attention and was kept under constant monitoring and observation, expenses shouldered by the company. Labor suits followed the event, Subsequently the court ordered UPLI to The awards for damages and attorneys fees, UPLI on their part averred that they are not obliged to pay Camilo the award for damages and attorneys fees as they rendered prompt medical attendance to the latter and thus negating bad faith. ISSUE: Whether or not Camilo the petitioner is entitled to award of damages and attorneys fees absence any lack of bad faith in the part of the employer UPLI. RULING: The above given case falls as an exception to Art.2208 of the New Civil Code which states that: In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: x x x x (8) In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and employers liability laws; x x x x. Hence the case of Camilo falling under the exception he is entitled to attorneys fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial cost, even in the absence of bad faith on the part of employer.
Prod - Liab.rep. (CCH) P 12,042 George W. Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing, A Nebraska Corporation, and Elliott Equipment Corporation A Nebraska Corporation, 867 F.2d 570, 10th Cir. (1989)
Industrial Indemnity Company v. Continental Casualty Company, Continental Casualty Company v. Industrial Indemnity Company, 375 F.2d 183, 10th Cir. (1967)