Scribd
Upload
42 views1 page

Asia Steel Corp VS WCC, L-7636, June 27, 1965

The document discusses a case from 1965 where a man named Ismael Carbajosa was injured and had his feet amputated after beginning work as an apprentice at Asia Steel Corporation's factory. The corporation claimed Carbajosa was not their employee, but the court ruled that the man in charge of the factory, Mr. Kim, had apparent authority to hire Carbajosa, making Asia Steel Corporation his employer and responsible for workers compensation.

Uploaded by

Earvin Joseph Barace
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views1 page

Asia Steel Corp VS WCC, L-7636, June 27, 1965

The document discusses a case from 1965 where a man named Ismael Carbajosa was injured and had his feet amputated after beginning work as an apprentice at Asia Steel Corporation's factory. The corporation claimed Carbajosa was not their employee, but the court ruled that the man in charge of the factory, Mr. Kim, had apparent authority to hire Carbajosa, making Asia Steel Corporation his employer and responsible for workers compensation.

Uploaded by

Earvin Joseph Barace
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1. ASIA STEEL CORP.

VS WCC, L-7636, JUNE 27, 1965

ASIA STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN'S


COMPENSATIONCOMMISSION AND ISMAEL CARBAJOSA, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.:

FACTS:
Mr. Kim, the in charge of the factory of the petitioner corporation, allowed the private respondent to
begin working as an apprentice.

Now, hardly a week since the private respondent began working in the factory, he was seriously
injured, and his two feet need to be amputated. His hospitalization was paid by the petitioner.

Thereafter, private respondent claimed for compensation.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER.


The petitioner corporation contends that private respondent was not an employee or laborer of the
corporation. In its by-laws, only the President of the corporation was authorized to hire employees for the
manufacturing establishment and that Kim's acts could not bind the corporation. Being a stranger in the
premises -not an employee- private respondent had no right.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner had given employment to Carbajosa.

RULING:
Yes. The petitioner had given employment to private respondent Carbajosa.

As a general rule, an agent, who with authority express, implied, apparent or actual, employs help for
the benefit of his principal's business, thereby creates the relationship of employer and employee between
such help and his principal.

It was found also that the President of the corporation manages its affairs, by remote control from his
office in Manila, thru the “in charge” Mr. Kim. Thus, there was an apparent authority of Kim, sufficiently
ample to create the relationship of employer and employee for the purpose of Workmen’s Compensation
Law.

The existence of employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation without which an


indemnity is unauthorized. It is often difficult of determination, because purposely made so by employers
bent on evading liability under the Compensation Acts. Hence, if the object of the law is to be accomplished
with a liberal construction, the creation of the relationship should not be adjudged strictly in accordance with
technical legal rules, but rather according to the actualities and realities of industrial or business practice.

You might also like