36 Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc.

V Workmen’s Compensasion Commisssion

Gonzales, Rafael

Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. V Workmen’s Compensasion Commisssion

G.R. No. L-8110

May 31, 2000

FACTS: Procopio Manucat was employed by Marinduque Iron Mines as a driver. On August 23, 1951
while in the perfomance of his duties, and with empolyees of Marinduque Mines in tow, the truck driven by
Manucat turned over an hit a coconut tree as a result of an ill-fated attempt at overtaking another vehicle.
The accident resulted in multiple injuries and the death of one Pedro Mamador.

Manucat was prosecuted and found subsequently convicted and ordered to indemnify the heirs of
Mamador, an order with which he did not comply.On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the ruling of the
lower court was reversed on the ground that Sunga's cause of action was based on a contract of carriage,
not quasi-delict, and that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil
Code. The appellate court dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable
for damages to Sunga.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Mamador may be held contributorily negligent due to his boarding of the
haulage truck against his employer’s orders. 2. Whether or not the “amicable settlement executed by the
Mamador’s wife may bar his heirs from recovery

HELD: 1. No. The Court ruled that Mamador cannot be said to be negligent because the act of riding a
truck, or even hitching a ride on a truck is not ordinarily negligent. That Mamador had ridden against the
orders of his employers cannot holdl him negligent per se, it is at most, evidence of negligence.

2. No. What Mamador pledged to forego was the filing of a criminal complaint against Manucat, she did
not however promise the same to third persons, in this case being Marinduque Mines.