VICTORIA TALLER VIUDA DE NAVA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO., defendant-appellee.

FACTS:

Ynchausti Steamship Co. is engaged in the business of operating vessels in the coastwise and
interisland trade, and on April 2, 1930, the steamer Vizcaya, one of its vessels, was being maneuvered in the
mouth of the Iloilo River, at Iloilo. At this time Valentin Nava held the position of helmsman (timonel) on said
boat, receiving a monthly compensation of P35. In connection with moving the boat Nava, in charge of other
members of the crew, was engaged in hauling in the ship's cable and in coiling the cable on the deck of the
boat preparatory to passing it down a hatchway and bestowing it in its proper place in the vessel. Nava found
the space which they required for coiling the cable partly occupied by a folding bed belonging to one of the
third-class passengers. Nava asked whose bed it was, and Dalmacio Villanueva, one of the passengers,
answered that he was the owner of the bed. Thereupon Nava said that he would push it to another place
because it interfered with the work. Suiting the action to the word, he pushed the bed with his foot towards the
other side of the ship. This act aroused the anger of the owner of the bed, and hot words were exchanged, in
the course of which Villanueva, using one of the wooden bars of the bed, gave Nava a jab in the pit of the
stomach. Under the impact of this blow Nava leaned back, and at this moment Vicente Villanueva, a brother
of Dalmacio Villanueva, ran up to Nava and stabbed him with a fan knife just above the left nipple. The blade
penetrated Nava's heart and he died almost instantly. For the crime of homicide thus committed Vicente
Villanueva was later sentenced to imprisonment and was required to indemnify the family of the deceased in
the amount of P1,000, with costs. The deceased left a wife and seven children; this action was instituted by the
wife for the purpose of recovery of the sum of P1,000.92 from the defendat due to the death of her husband
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Defendant’s contentions: 1. The death of Valentin Nava was not an accident within the meaning of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, No. 3428 which provides that compensation is demandable for "a personal
injury from any accident due to and in the pursuance of the employment".

2. Nava was not an "industrial employee", within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, inasmuch
as he was employed as a helmsman (timonel) and his duties were not of an industrial nature.

3. Act No. 3428, as amended, does not cover the case of an employee upon a coastwise vessel.

4. case does not come under Act No. 3428 for the reason that it does not appear that the defendant had a
gross income during the year immediately preceding the one during which the accident occurred of not less
than P40,000 as required under subsection (d) of section 39 of Act No. 3428

5. Criminal court imposed the civil obligation on Vicente Villanueva to indemnify the family of the deceased in
the amount of one thousand pesos makes it improper to allow additional compensation in this case.

ISSUE:
WON the death of Valentin Nava occurred in the course of his employment, or was the result of the nature of
such employment

RULING:

The amending provision (Sec. 1 of Act 3812) is not applicable to the case since it was enactd after the death of
Nava. The provision applicable is section 2 of Act No. 3428, which provides:

SEC. 2. Grounds for compensation. — When any employee receives a personal injury from any
accident due to and in the pursuance of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by
such employment or the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation
in the sums and to the persons hereinafter specified.

Although the death of Nava was not due to any illness directly caused by his employment, the SC held that it
occurred in the course of his employment and "in pursuance of the employment". While the term indicative of
his employment was that of helmsman, his duties should be considered as comprehending acts done by him in
helping to guide the ship. It results that, when Nava found that one of the third-class passengers had placed
his bed on the deck in a position where it was in his way, he acted within the scope of his duty when he pushed
the bed back; and when the fatal assault was made upon him because of that act, it must be considered that
his death resulted from an act done in the line of his duty.

The appellee has cited some American decision to support the conclusion that the homicide was not an
accident due to and in pursuance of his employment: State of Minnesota ex rel. School Dist. No. 1, in Itasca
County vs. District Court, and Schmoll vs. Weisbrod & Hess Brewing which are all not controlling to the present
case. Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation demanded and no question has been made as to the amount
thereof.