Case Digest: Quizon v. GSIS, ECC Case No. 3015, October 16, 1987

Labor Law | Policy and Definitions

  • A Philippine Army soldier died in December 1980 due to dynamite blast at Tumalutab detachment in Ipil, Zamboanga City.
  • Investigation showed that after lunch that day, he asked permission from his unit to test the dynamite they had earlier confiscated. 
  • He took a civilian pumpboat and proceeded towards nearby Sinonog Island. Along the way, however, he accidentally ignited the fuse of the dynamite, causing it to explode prematurely. The soldier died on the spot.
  • His father filed a claim for compensation benefits for his death.
  • GSIS: Denied the claim because the deceased at the time of accident was not performing his duties aside from being notoriously negligent.
  • Appellant: Averred that his son belonged to the Ranger Training Group whose primary mission is to develop selected soldiers in the field of specialized small unit tactics, particularly on weapons, explosives, and hand-to-hand combat, among others. Thus, testing a dynamite was part of the deceased’s training as a ranger. 
    • In fact, no less than the Minister of National Defense through his legal chief, Brig. Gen. Samuel Soriano, supported the line of duty status of his son’s death.
    • It was not the commanding officer of the deceased as alleged in respondent’s adverse decision who advised him not to test the dynamite, but merely a colleague of the same rank as the deceased.

WoN the death of the soldier is compensable. YES

The ECC reversed the respondent System’s decision and ordered payment of the claim. There was indeed negligence on the part of the deceased soldier. However, his negligence was not notorious as perceived by the respondent. Notorious negligence is something more than simple or contributory negligence. It signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety. Disobedience to rules does not in itself constitute notorious negligence, if no intention can be attributed to the injured to end his life.

Thus, in line with the principle of liberally construing compensation law, to attain its purpose for which it was enacted, the correct view to be followed is that no man in his right senses would deliberately court death. The presumption then to be adopted is that any person by his instinct of self preservation wants to avoid such danger unless an intention is attributed to him to end his life.

Considering the soldier’s training on explosives as a ranger, his desire to test the confiscated dynamite is but a natural reaction on his part to the extent that he even ignored the advice of his colleague against his plan. Unfortunately, the dynamite exploded prematurely causing his instant death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered