G.R. No. L-16298
September 29, 1962
ESTEBAN CUAJAO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHUA LO TAN, ET AL., defendants, CHUA LO TAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: Esteban Cuajao is the family driver of Chua Lo Tan. He was hospitalized for 19 days in 1951, 13 days in 1952, and 3 days in 1953, spending a total of P435.80 for hospitalization and medicine. He was not afforded any vacation leave which if aggregated would amount to P1,580.00 (4 days a month or 316 days vacation leave x his daily wage of P5.00 a day). He filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Manila praying for the p ayment of his vacation leave and his hospitalization costs. The lower court ruled that since since Cuajao haven’t demanded the leave from his employers, he has waived his right to his vacation leave. He cannot then recover the amount equal to his vacation leave plus the hospitalization costs. ISSUE: Whether or not Cuajao has waived his right to his vacation leave. Whether or not Chua Lo Tan is entitled to reimburse the hospitalization costs incurred by Esteban Cuajao, his driver. RULING: On the first issue, there was a waiver on h is part. If it was true that he has demanded his vacation leave from his employer, he shouldn’t have stayed long for six years with Chua Lo Tan ignoring his heeds and without instituting any action to demand the same. In a recent case, vacation leave is a privilege to afford the employer replenishment of his worn-out energ y and to acquire new vitality. This, however, should be demanded of the employer otherwise, it becomes a mere concession or act of grace of the employer. Upon the other hand, the award for hospitalization expenses is based upon Article 1689 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which, Chua Ch ua Lo Tan maintains, does not justify said award. Said article reads: “Household service shall always be reasonably compensated. Any stipulation that household service is without compensation shall be void. Such compensation shall be in addition to the house helper's lodging, food, and medical attendance.” attendance.” The right to medical attendance is deemed de emed subject to the rule of necessity, ne cessity, in the sense that said right is dependent upon the need for said medical attendance. So is the term “hospitalization expenses” included in “medical attendance”? This should be decided based upon the surrounding circumstances. There was no other evidence – evidence – expert expert or otherwise – otherwise – regarding regarding the necessity of his confinement in a hospital. It It wasn’t also proven that he has advised Chua Lo Tan of his condition or his hospitalization. It is only fair that Chua Lo Tan, who was supposed to expend for the expenses to
have a say in choosing the physician or hospital who will treat him.With these ci rcumstances, Chua Lo Tan should not defray for the medication expenses incurred by his driver when he was hospitalized.
