Statcon Case 3 Tamayo v Gsell

TAMAYO v. GSELL WHEN & WHERE: December 22, 1916, Manila OPERATIVE STATUTE: Philippine Bill of 1902 SYLLOGIM: Act No. 1874, Employer’s Liability Act FACTS: An action for damages against Gsell (employer) for personal injuries suffered by Braulio Tamayo, minor son of plaintiff asking for P 400, without costs except P 25 for the attorney of the Bureau of Labor. Braulio is a minor about 11 or 12 years old who is employed as a workman in the match factory located in Sta. Ana, Manila. He met an accident which consisted of an injury caused by the knife of one of the machines of the factory which cut the little ring fingers on the right hand, the latter of which was severed. The accident arose by reason of him being assigned by Eugenio Murcia, a foreman employed in the same factory to perform work which he was not accustomed. He was not given any instruction and was put in the new task only on the day of the accident. He was assigned to clean the part of the machine where pieces of wood from the strips were stuck, he was caught by the knife of the machine and his righ finer was served. He was thereupon brought to the General Hospital. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory interpose by the defendant and whether or not damages should be awarded to Tamayo? HELD: Applying the foregoing principles (cited in the decision are many American cases in relation to the case and Act No. 1874, Employer’s Liability Act), which are founded upon reason and justice, it is concluded that the trial court did not err in rejecting the defense’ claim. Tamayo is also awarded damages for the injury cost on him on the negligence of the part of the foremen to warn Tamayo or to give instructions and consideration to his age, skills and capabilities & for pecuniary loss occasioned by the injury as well as his diminished capacity resulting from the injury. LATIN MAXIMS: 1 – LEGIS INTERPRETATIO LEGIS VIM OBTINET Judicial construction and interpretation of a statutes acquires the force of the law B2- AMBIGUITAS VERBORUM PATENS NULLA VERIFICATIONE EXCLUDITUR. A patent ambiguity cannot be cleared up by extrinsic evidence • Anything that can shed light should be used **36E- EX ANTECEDENTIBUS ET CONSEQUENTIBUS FIT OPTIMA INTERPRETATIO A passage will be best interpreted by reference to that which precedes and follows it.