Labor Law: Book IV; Title II; Chapter I Policy and Definitions (Arts. 172 - 173) Additional Readings
Health, Safety and Social Welfare
Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance Fund
Chapter I
Policy and Definitions
Arts. 172 - 173 Additional Readings
Validity of PD 626/ Interpretation
Sarmiento vs Employee’s Compensation Commission, GR No. 65680, May 11, 1988
- Flordeliza Sarmiento, an employee of the National Power Corporation, died on August 12, 1981, due to parotid carcinoma (cancer of the salivary gland).
- Jose Sarmiento filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.
- GSIS and ECC: Denied the claim stating that the illness was not caused by employment conditions.
I. Constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 626. YES
The new law establishes a state insurance fired built up by the contributions of employers based on the salaries of their employees. The injured worker does not have to litigate his right to compensation. No employer opposes his claim. There is no notice of injury nor requirement of controversion. The sick worker simply files a claim with a new neutral Employees' Compensation Commission which then determines on the basis of the employee's supporting papers and medical evidence whether or not compensation may be paid. The payment of benefits is more prompt. The cost of administration is low. The amount of death benefits has also been doubled.
On the other hand, the employer's duty is only to pay the regular monthly premiums to the scheme. It does not look for insurance companies to meet sudden demands for compensation payments or set up its own funds to meet these contingencies. It does not have to defend itself from spuriously documented or long past claims.
The new law applies the social security principle in the handling of workmen's compensation. The Commission administers and settles claims from a find under its exclusive control. The employer does not intervene in the compensation process and it has no control, as in the past, over payment of benefits.
Since there is no employer opposing or fighting a claim for compensation, the rules on presumption of compensability and controversion cease to have importance. The present law was enacted in the belief that it better complies with the mandate on social justice and is more advantageous to the greater number of working men and women. Until Congress and the President decide to improve or amend the law, our duty is to apply it.
II. Whether parotid carcinoma is a compensable illness under the Employees' Compensation law. NO
Applying the law to the present case, parotid carcinoma or cancer of the salivary glands is not an occupational disease considering the deceased's employment as accounting clerk and later as manager of the budget division.
As with other kinds of cancer, the cause and nature of parotid carcinoma is still not known. We affirm the findings of the public respondents which found no proof that the deceased's working conditions have indeed caused or increased the risk of her contracting her illness.
Dabatian vs GSIS, GR No. 47294, April 9, 1987
- Sigfredo A. Dabatian, a Garbage Truck Driver in Cagayan de Oro City, died due to peptic ulcer. He was a heavy coffee drinker and worked night shifts.
- His widow, Hilaria Dabatian, filed for income benefits under the Employee's Compensation Program
- GSIS: Denied the compensability of the claim, stating that peptic ulcer was not listed as an occupational disease, and there was no proof it was caused by employment or that the risk of contracting it increased due to working conditions.
- ECC: Upheld the decision of GSIS stating that his ailment was primarily traceable to factors not work-connected, particularly his heavy coffee drinking habit, which aggravated the disease.
I. WoN the presumption of compensability and the principle of aggravation, applicable under the old compensation law, should be considered. NO
The records show that petitioner died on July 3, 1976 when the old compensation law had already been abrogated. No competent evidence whatsoever was submitted to prove that Dabatian's ailment was contracted prior to January 1, 1975 in order to bring it under the protective mantle of the old compensation law.
The present Labor Code, P.D. 442 as amended, abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of employment, the reason being — "to restore a sensible equilibrium between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's compensation and the employee's right to receive reparation for work- connected death or disability ... " It was found, and rightly so, that the old law, the Workmen's Compensation Act, destroyed the parity or balance between the competing interests of employer and employee with respect to workmen's compensation. The balance was tilted unduly in favor of the workmen since it was possible to stretch the work-related nature of an ailment beyond seemingly rational its.
II. WoN the death of Sigfredo A. Dabatian is compensable under the Employees' Compensation Program. NO
Since peptic ulcer is not included in the list of occupational diseases as drawn up by the Commission, then petitioner has the burden of proving that the nature of her husband’s work increased the risk of contracting the disease.
Aside from the undisputed fact that the deceased is a heavy coffee drinker, which was his way of warding off sleepiness, no evidence was ever adduced by petitioner to bolster the theory that her husband's work increased the risk of contracting the ailment.
Being a heavy coffee drinker may have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no longer a ground for compensation under the present law.
This Court takes notice of the fact that the conditions in this case are not peculiar to the work mentioned herein. Many, if not most, employees are equally exposed to similar conditions but have not been victims of peptic ulcer.
Lazo vs ECC, GR No. 78617, June 18, 1990
- Salvador Lazo is a security guard at the Central Bank of the Philippines assigned to its main office in Malate, Manila.
- His regular duty is from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM, but due to a colleague's absence, he worked overtime until 5:00 AM on June 19.
- While going home to Binangonan, Rizal, he was injured in a vehicular accident around 6:00 AM.
- Lazo filed for disability benefits under PD 626.
- GSIS: Denied the claim based on the argument that the accident occurred while Lazo was not at his workplace but on his way home for personal reasons.
- ECC: Affirmed the denial, stating the accident happened far from his workplace during a personal matter.
In the case at bar, it can be seen that petitioner left his station at the Central Bank several hours after his regular time off, because the reliever did not arrive, and so petitioner was asked to go on overtime. After permission to leave was given, he went home. There is no evidence on record that petitioner deviated from his usual, regular homeward route or that interruptions occurred in the journey.
As agent charged by the law to implement social justice guaranteed and secured by the Constitution, the Employees Compensation Commission should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection to the accident. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the New Labor Code.
There is no reason, in principle, why employees should not be protected for a reasonable period of time prior to or after working hours and for a reasonable distance before reaching or after leaving the employer's premises.
We are constrained not to consider the defense of the street peril doctrine and instead interpret the law liberally in favor of the employee because the Employees Compensation Act, like the Workmen's Compensation Act, is basically a social legislation designed to afford relief to the working men and women in our society.
Proximate Cause
Belarmino vs ECC, GR No. 90104, May 11, 1990
- Oania Belarmino, a classroom teacher, fell in her classroom while pregnant, causing abdominal pain. Despite the pain, she continued working until she prematurely delivered her baby at home, experiencing complications.
- Belarmino developed postpartum septicemia and died due to infected lacerations from childbirth.
- Her husband, Manuel Belarmino, filed a claim for death benefits.
- GSIS and ECC: Denied the claim on the ground that the cause of death was not work-connected.
The illness, septicemia post partum which resulted in the death of Oania Belarmino, is admittedly not listed as an occupational disease in her particular line of work as a classroom teacher. However, as pointed out in the petition, her death from that ailment is compensable because an employment accident and the conditions of her employment contributed to its development.
Verily, the right to compensation extends to disability due to disease supervening upon and proximately and naturally resulting from a compensable injury Where the primary injury is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to complainants own negligence or misconduct. Simply stated, all the medical consequences and sequels that flow from the primary injury are compensable.
Mrs. Belarmino's fall was the primary injury that arose in the course of her employment as a classroom teacher, hence, all the medical consequences flowing from it: her recurrent abdominal pains, the premature delivery of her baby, her septicemia post partum and death, are compensable. Social justice for the lowly and underpaid public school teachers will only be an empty shibboleth until Government adopts measures to ameliorate their economic condition and provides them with adequate medical care or the means to afford it.
24 Hour Duty Doctrine
Hinoguin vs ECC, GR No. 8430, April 17, 1989
- Sgt. Lemick G. Hinoguin, a member of the Philippine Army, along with two other soldiers, sought permission from their Commanding Officer to go on an overnight pass to Aritao, Nueva Viscaya. They were allowed to carry their firearms due to the area's critical security situation, that is, it had peace and order problems due to the presence of elements of the NPA in the vicinity of Aritao.
- While returning from their outing, one of the soldiers accidentally discharged his M-16 rifle, hitting Sgt. Hinoguin in the abdomen. Sgt. Hinoguin was rushed to the hospital but later succumbed to his injuries.
- Ciriaco Hinoguin filed his claim for compensation benefits under P.D. No. 626, claiming that the death of his son was work-connected and therefore compensable.
- GSIS & WCC: Denied the claim since he was not on his place of work nor was he performing official functions. On the contrary, he was on pass and had just came from a merrymaking when accidentally shot by his companion.
Sgt. Hinoguin, Cpl. Clavo and Dft. Alibuyog had permission from their Commanding Officer to proceed to Aritao, and it appears to us that a place which soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at cannot be very different, legally speaking, from a place where they are required to go by their commanding officer. We note that the three (3) soldiers were on an overnight pass which, notably, they did not utilize in full. They were not on vacation leave. Moreover, they were required or authorized to carry their firearms with which presumably they were to defend themselves if NPA elements happened to attack them while en route to and from Aritao or with which to attack and seek to capture such NPA elements as they might encounter. Indeed, if the three (3) soldiers had in fact encountered NPAs while on their way to or from Aritao and been fired upon by them and if Sgt. Hinoguin had been killed by an NPA bullet, we do not believe that respondent GSIS would have had any difficulty in holding the death a compensable one.
The Line of Duty Board of Officers of the 14th Infantry Battalion Headquarters had already determined that the death of Sgt. Hinoguin had occurred "in line of duty." It may be noted in this connection that a soldier on active duty status is really on 24 hours a day official duty status and is subject to military discipline and military law 24 hours a day. He is subject to call and to the orders of his superior officers at all times, 7 days a week, except, of course, when he is on vacation leave status (which Sgt. Hinoguin was not)
More generally, a soldier in the Armed Forces must accept certain risks, for instance, that he will be fired upon by forces hostile to the State or the Government. A soldier must also assume the risk of being accidentally fired upon by his fellow soldiers. This is reasonably regarded as a hazard or risk inherent in his employment as a soldier.
Going to/Coming from Work Rule
Street Peril Doctrine
Alano vs ECC, GR NO. L-48594, March 16, 1988
- Dedicacion de Vera, a government employee and principal of Salinap Community School, Pangasinan, was waiting for a ride to go to work when she was bumped and run over by a speeding Toyota mini-bus, resulting in her instantaneous death.
- Her brother, Generoso C. Alano, filed a claim for income benefit on behalf of her children.
- GSIS: Denied the claim since the injury did not meet the conditions prescribed by law for compensation.
The claim is compensable. When an employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably proximate to the place at work, while he is going to and from his work, such injury is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment.
In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased died while going to her place of work. She was at the place where, as the petitioner puts it, her job necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. There was nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the place of the accident. She was there because her employment required her to be there.
Extra- Premises Rule
Special Errand Rule
Rule on Assault
Bohol Land Trans Co vs Madanguit, GR No. L-47360, November 28, 1940
- Ramon Madanguit, an employee of Bohol Land Transportation Co., was driving their passenger truck when he collided with Ciriaco Dalmao, who was riding a bicycle.
- Madanguit stopped the truck in front of a house and went to a nearby drug store to wash his hands.
- Dalmao followed Madanguit into the drug store and fatally stabbed him.
- Madanguit's heirs filed a compensation claim under Act No. 3428 for compensation for personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.
- CFI-Bohol & CA: Awarded the compensation.
The Court held that Madanguit's death did arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Court cited precedents and legal provisions indicating that injuries suffered while going to or from work, or while seeking facilities related to employment, are compensable.
. . . where the employee is injured while seeking toilet facilities or going to or from a toilet, the injury arises out of the employment and in the course of it . . .
The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any error in deciding this matter, confirming in all its parts the ruling of the court a quo in favor of Fermina Vda. of Madanguit, the respondent.
Increased Risk
Presumptive Compensability
Quebec vs GSIS, November 9, 1988
NPA VICTIMS;
- The moment an AFP member suffers a contingency, the presumption is that it is because of the nature of his work.
- This policy is “adopted because of certain serious peace and order problems of the country, more particularly the insurgency problem, it has become generally perceptible that on account of the nature of their work, members of the AFP have become “marked men” insofar as insurgents and other lawless elements are concerned and are, therefore killed by such insurgents at every opportunity.
- Same problem is true to the members of the police force.
- Police officers are also targets of the insurgents an other lawless elements.
Jahuran vs GSIS, 3551, March 29, 1989
- Presumption applied in the Quebec case was not applied because said presumption only attaches when the members of the AFP are killed by insurgents or lawless elements because of the mere fact that they are soldiers.
- In the case at bar Jahuran’s heirs were denied compensability although he was killed by another member of the Philippine Constabulary because evidence revealed the indeed the incident was brought about by personal conflicts.
Effects of Violation of Rules
Occupational Disease
Menez vs ECC, GR No. L-48488, April 25, 1980
- Gloria D. Menez was employed by the Department (now Ministry) of Education & Culture as a school teacher. She retired at the age of 54 years after 32 years of teaching, due to rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis.
- Before her retirement, she was assigned at Raja Soliman High School in Tondo-Binondo, Manila near a dirty creek.
- Petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626.
- GSIS & ECC: Denied the claim on the ground that petitioner's ailments, rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis, are not occupational diseases taking into consideration the nature of her particular work.
An occupational disease is one which develops as a result of hazards peculiar to certain occupations, due to toxic substances (as in the organic solvents industry), radiation (as in television repairmen), repeated mechanical injury, emotional strain. Rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis can be considered as such occupational diseases.
In the case of the petitioner, her emotional tension is heightened by the fact that the high school in which she teaches is situated in a tough area - Binondo district, which is inhabited by thugs and other criminal elements and further aggravated by the heavy pollution and congestion therein as well as the stinking smell of the dirty Estero de la Reina nearby. Women, like herein petitioner, are most vulnerable to such unhealthy conditions. The pitiful situation of all public school teachers is further accentuated by poor diet for they can ill-afford nutritious food.
In her work, petitioner also has to contend with the natural elements, like the inclement weather — heavy rains, typhoons — as well as dust — and disease-ridden surroundings peculiar to an insanitary slum area.
These unwholesome conditions are "normal and consistently present in" or are the "hazards peculiar to" the occupation of a public high school teacher. It is therefore evident that rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis are the "natural incidents" of petitioner's occupation as such public high school teacher.
Theory of Increased Risk
Narazo vs ECC, Gr No. 80157, February 6, 1990
- Geronimo Narazo, a Budget Examiner in the Office of the Governor, Province of Negros Occidental, died at the age of 57 due to "obstructive nephropathy due to benign prostatic hypertrophy," commonly known as "Uremia." His medical records indicated hospital confinements for urinary retention, abdominal pain, and anemia.
- His widow, Amalia Nazaro filed a claim for death benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under the Employees’ Compensation Law.
- The petitioner argued that her husband’s sedentary work, coupled with stress and pressure, caused him to delay urination, which led to the development of his ailments.
- GSIS: Denied the claim, stating that the cause of death was not listed as an occupational disease, and there was no evidence linking the deceased's job as a Budget Examiner to the ailment.
- ECC: Upheld the denial stating that benign prostatic hypertrophy is quite common among men over fifty (50) years of age, regardless of occupation.
The nature of the work of the deceased as Budget Examiner in the Office of the Governor dealt with the detailed preparation of the budget, financial reports and review and/or examination of the budget of other provincial and municipal offices. Full concentration and thorough study of the entries of accounts in the budget and/or financial reports were necessary, such that the deceased had to sit for hours, and more often that not, delay and even forego urination in order not to interrupt the flow of concentration. In addition, tension and pressure must have aggravated the situation.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we are persuaded to hold that the cause of death of petitioner’s husband is work-connected, i.e. the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the nature of the work, so much so that petitioner is entitled to receive compensation benefits for the death of her husband.
Dabatian vs GSIS, GR No. 47294, April 9, 1987
- Sigfredo A. Dabatian, a Garbage Truck Driver in Cagayan de Oro City, died due to peptic ulcer. He was a heavy coffee drinker and worked night shifts.
- His widow, Hilaria Dabatian, filed for income benefits under the Employee's Compensation Program
- GSIS: Denied the compensability of the claim, stating that peptic ulcer was not listed as an occupational disease, and there was no proof it was caused by employment or that the risk of contracting it increased due to working conditions.
- ECC: Upheld the decision of GSIS stating that his ailment was primarily traceable to factors not work-connected, particularly his heavy coffee drinking habit, which aggravated the disease.
II. WoN the death of Sigfredo A. Dabatian is compensable under the Employees' Compensation Program. NO
Since peptic ulcer is not included in the list of occupational diseases as drawn up by the Commission, then petitioner has the burden of proving that the nature of her husband’s work increased the risk of contracting the disease.
Aside from the undisputed fact that the deceased is a heavy coffee drinker, which was his way of warding off sleepiness, no evidence was ever adduced by petitioner to bolster the theory that her husband's work increased the risk of contracting the ailment.
Being a heavy coffee drinker may have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no longer a ground for compensation under the present law.
This Court takes notice of the fact that the conditions in this case are not peculiar to the work mentioned herein. Many, if not most, employees are equally exposed to similar conditions but have not been victims of peptic ulcer.
Rule on Suicide
Interorient Maritime Enterprises vs Pineda, GR No. 115497, September 16, 1996
- Jeremias Pineda, a seaman, was contracted to work on the vessel "MV Amazonia."
- On September 28, 1989, he finished his contract and was discharged from the port of Dubai for repatriation to Manila.
- On October 2, 1989, He was shot and killed by a Thai policeman in Bangkok, Thailand.
- Pineda was suffering from mental disorders and had exhibited strange behavior.
- Aggravated by threats on his life by his fellow seamen, the Ship Captain should not have allowed him to travel alone.
- The police report submitted to the Philippine Embassy in Bangkok confirmed that it was Pineda who ‘approached and tried to stab the police sergeant with a knife and therefore he was forced to pull out his gun and shot Pineda’
- Constancia Pineda, heir of her deceased son Jeremias Pineda, filed a claim for death compensation benefits against Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., its foreign principal Fircroft Shipping Corporation, and Times Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.
- Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Administrator: Ordered the respondents to pay death compensation benefits and burial expenses, holding them liable for Pineda's death.
- NLRC: Upheld the decision.
This Court agrees with the POEA Administrator that seaman Pineda was no longer acting sanely when he attacked the Thai policeman. The report of the Philippine Embassy in Thailand dated October 9, 1990 depicting the deceased’s strange behavior shortly before he was shot dead, after having wandered around Bangkok for four days, clearly shows that the man was not in full control of his own self.
The POEA Administrator ruled, and this Court agrees, that since Pineda attacked the Thai policeman when he was no longer in complete control of his mental faculties, the aforequoted provision of the Standard Format Contract of Employment exempting the employer from liability should not apply in the instant case.
- Firstly, the fact that the deceased suffered from mental disorder at the time of his repatriation means that he must have been deprived of the full use of his reason, and that thereby, his will must have been impaired, at the very least. Thus, his attack on the policeman can in no wise characterized as a deliberate, willful or voluntary act on his part.
- Secondly, and apart from that, we also agree that in light of the deceased’s mental condition, petitioners "should have observed some precautionary measures and should not have allowed said seaman to travel home alone", and their failure to do so rendered them liable for the death of Pineda. Indeed, "the obligations and liabilities of the (herein petitioners) do not end upon the expiration of the contracted period as (petitioner are) duty bound to repatriate the seaman to the point of hire to effectively terminate the contract of employment."
The death and burial benefits being claimed in this case are not payable by the Employees’ Compensation Commission and chargeable against the State Insurance Fund. These claims arose from the responsibility of the foreign employer together with the local agency for the safety of the employee during his repatriation and until his arrival in this country, i.e., the point of hire. The foreign employer may not have been obligated by its contract to provide a companion for a returning employee, but it cannot deny that it was expressly tasked by its agreement to assure the safe return of said workers.
NAESS Shipping Phils vs NLRC, GR NO. 73441, September 4, 1987
- Pablo Dublin, the chief steward of the vessel M/V DYVI PACIFIC, fatally stabbed the second cook, Rodolfo Fernandez, during a quarrel, then jumped or fell overboard and disappeared.
- Dublin was employed by NAESS Shipping, Philippines, Inc. under an employment contract that provided for compensation benefits for the loss of life.
- Dublin's widow, Zenaida Dublin, filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against NAESS for payment of death benefits under the employment contract.
- The employment contract, which incorporated a Special Agreement between the International Workers Federation (ITF) and NAESS, provided for cash benefits to the immediate next of kin in case of death of the crewman.
- Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Administrator: Held Dublin's death compensable under said Special Agreement and ordering NAESS to pay complainant and her child compensation benefits.
- NLRC: Affirmed the decision.
There is no question that NAESS freely bound itself to a contract which on its face makes it unqualifiedly liable to pay compensation benefits for Dublin's death while in its service, regardless of whether or not it intended to make itself the insurer, in the legal sense, of Dublin's life. No law or rule has been cited which would make it illegal for an employer to assume such obligation in favor of his or its employee in their contract of employment.
In view of what has already been stated, it makes no difference whether Dublin intentionally took his own life, or he killed himself in a moment of temporary aberration triggered by remorse over the killing of the second cook, or he accidentally fell overboard while trying to flee from imagined pursuit, which last possibility cannot be ruled out considering the state of the evidence. It may be noted parenthetically that these conjectures sound equally plausible because the events surrounding the death of Dublin have not been established with any degree of certitude.
On Dublin's part, entitlement to death benefits resulted from his death while serving out his contract of employment; it was not a consequence of his killing of the second cook, Rodolfo Fernandez. If the latter's death is also compensable, that is due to the solitary fact of his death while covered by a similar contract, not precisely to the fact that he met death at the hands of Dublin That both deaths may be related by cause and effect and NAESS is the single obligor liable for compensation in both cases must, insofar as the factual and legal bases of such liability is concerned, be regarded as purely accidental circumstances.
Notorious Negligence
Solidum v. GSIS, ECC Case No. 4061, November 23, 1988
- Solidum was an enlisted man of the Philippine Marines, assigned to the 10th Marine Battalion, stationed at Zamboanga City.
- One morning in March 1987, Solidum, who was then resting after a patrol mission, jokingly challenged his comrades to a duel, but they all ignored him.
- Pointing the muzzle of his loaded rifle at his temple and, saying “Bahala na,” Solidum squeezed the trigger. He died instantly.
- His father filed a claim for death benefits under P.D. No. 626.
- GSIS: Denied the claim because the contingency did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The System pointed out that the deceased was not performing his duties as a soldier when the accident occurred. Moreover, it said, the deceased’s death was caused by his notorious negligence and not by an accident or by “an act of God.”
WoN the death of Solidum is compensable under P.D. No. 626. NO
The ECC sustained the System’s decision. The ECC noted that the deceased pointed the muzzle of his rifle to himself and squeezed its trigger causing his death. “Such an act, we believe, constitutes notorious negligence. The employees’ compensation program under which the appellant seeks relief is designed to compensate only the working men who are victims of work-connected injuries and other contingencies. In the case before us, the contingency did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and therefore is not compensable.”Quizon v. GSIS, 3015, October 16, 1987
- 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
Post a Comment