LABOR - Petitioner was earlier paid GSIS benefits of P142,

BOOK IV CASES 285.03 but the claim for employee’s compensation was
disallowed.
1. SARMIENTO v. ECC - Petitioner also attacks the constitutionality of PD
FACTS: 626 as amended. He alleges that the law infringes
- The late Flordeliza Sarmiento was employed by the upon the guarantees of promotion of social justice and
National Power Corp as accounting clerk. At the amounts to class legislation in its enforcement, and
time of her death in 1981, she was manager of the prays for the application of the Old Workmen’s
budget division. Compensation Act, which provided for a presumption
- History of her illness showed that symptoms of compensability whenever an ailment supervened
manifested as early as 1980 as a small wound over the during the course of the employment.
external auditory canal and mass over the mastoid ISSUE: WON illness of Flordeliza was compensable and
region. Biopsy of the mass revealed cancer known as WON PD 626 as amended is unconstitutional.
“differentiated squamous cell carcinoma.” RULING:
- She sought treatment in various hospitals (Veterans - The Court has recognized the validity of the present
Memorial, United Doctors, Makati Med). In March law. It is settled jurisprudence that PD 626, as
1981, a soft tissue mass emerged on her left upper amended, discarded the concepts of “presumption of
cheek which deformed her lips and made her unable to compensability” and “aggravation” to restore what
close her left eye. the law believes is a sensible equilibrium between the
- She had her last treatment at Capitol Medical. On employer’s obligation to pay workmen’s compensation
August 12, 1981, she succumbed to cardiac arrest due and the employee’s rights to receive reparation for
to parotid carcinoma at 40 years old. work-connected death or disability.
- Appellant Jose Sarmiento, believing that the - PD 626 is the law on employees’ compensation,
Flordeliza’s illness having been contracted during which superseded the Labor Code and the
employment was service-connected, filed a claim provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
for DEATH BENEFITS under PD 626, as amended. - NEW SCHEME OF COMPENSATION as explained in
He alleges that Flordeliza contracted such illness De Jesus V. EC: The new law establishes a state
during the latter’s field trips necessitating plane travels insurance fund built up by the contributions of
which caused deafening and numb sensations in her employers based on the salaries of their employees.
ears. The injured worker does not have to litigate his right to
- GSIS denied the claim. It was pointed out that parotid compensation. No employer opposes his claim. There
carcinoma is a malignant tumor of the parotid or is no notice of injury nor requirement of controversion.
salivary gland, and that its development was not The sick worker simply files a claim with a new neutral
caused by employment and employment conditions. ECC which then determines on the basis of the
- Dissatisfied, Jose requested that the records of the employee’s supporting papers and medical evidence
claim be elevated to the Employee’s Compensation whether or not compensation may be paid. Payment of
Commission for review. benefits is more prompt, cost of administration is low,
- ECC affirmed GSIS’ decision. Parotid carcinoma is not and amount of death benefits has been double.
compensable because she did not contract nor suffer - The employer’s duty is only to pay the regular monthly
from the same by reason of her work but by reason of premiums to the scheme. The new law applies the
embryonic rests and epithelial growth. social security principle in the handling of
workmen’s compensation. The Commission
 administers and settles claims from a fund under leave early in order to take home to Binangonan, Rizal
its exclusive control. Employer does not intervene his sack of rice.
in the compensation process and it has no control, - On his way home at 6AM, the passenger jeepney he
as in the past, over payment of benefits. A covered was riding on turned turtle due to a slippery road. He
claimant suffering from an occupational disease is sustained injuries and was confined for such until July
AUTOMATICALLY paid benefits. 25, 1986.
- Since there is no employer opposing or fighting a claim - For the injuries he sustained, Salvador filed a claim for
for compensation, the rules on presumption of disability benefits under PD 626, as amended. He
compensability and controversion cease to have alleges that the injuries he sustained should be
importance. The lopsided situation of an employer v construed as “arising out of or in the course of
one employee, which called for equalization through employment”, and thus compensable. To support his
the various rules and concepts favoring the claimant is plea, he cited the case of Baldebrin V. WCC, where
now absent. the Court awarded compensation to petitioner who
- Wisdom of the present scheme is a matter that should figured in an accident on his way home from his official
be addressed to the Pres and Congress, not to this station to his residence. In such case, the petitioner’s
Court. Until Congress and the Pres decide to improve left eye was hit by a pebble while he was riding a bus.
or amend the law, our duty is to apply it. Petitioner’s - GSIS denied. According to GSIS, it appears that after
challenge is really against the desirability, not performing his regular duties and overtime duty, he
constitutionality, of the new law. asked permission to leave the office to do a certain
- A compensable illness means any illness accepted personal matter – that of bringing home a sack of rice,
as an occupational disease and listed by the ECC, or where he met such vehicular accident. It is evident that
any illness caused by employment subject to proof by he was not at his workplace performing his duties
the employee that the risk of contracting the same is when the accident occurred.
increased by working conditions. - ECC affirmed GSIS’ decision, since the accident
- Parotid Carcinoma is not an occupational disease occurred far from his workplace and while he was
considering that Flordeliza was an accounting clerk attending to a personal matter.
and later, was a manager of the budget division. As ISSUE: WON the injuries sustained by Salvador were
with other kinds of cancer, the cause and nature of compensable
parotid carcinoma is still not known. RULING: Petitioner’s submission is meritorious.
- Petition is dismissed. - The Court has ruled in several cases that when an
employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably

2. LAZO V. ECC AND GSIS proximate to the place at work, while he is going to and

FACTS: from his work, such injury is deemed to have arisen out
- Petitioner Salvador Lazo is a security guard of the of and in the course of his employment.
Central Bank of the Philippines assigned in its main - Employment includes not only the actual doing of the

office in Malate, Manila. His regular tour of duty is from work, but a reasonable margin of time and space

2PM – 10PM. necessary to be used in passing to and from the place

- On June 18, 1986, Salvador rendered his regular duty, where the work is to be done.

but as the security guard who was to relieve him failed - If the employee be injured while passing, with the

to arrive, he rendered overtime duty up to 5AM the express or implied consent of the employer, to or from
next day. He asked permission from his superior to his work by a way over the employer’s premises, or
over those of another in such proximity and relation as
 to be in practical effect a part of the employer’s to take a leave of absence, she continued to report to
premises, the injury is one arising out of and in the the school because there was much work to do.
course of the employment as much as though it - She went into labor and prematurely delivered a baby
happened while the employee was engaged in his girl 11 at home, eleven days after her accident. Her
work at the place of its performance. abdominal pains persisted even after the deliver,
- In the case at bar, after permission to leave was given, accompanied by high fever and headache.
he already went home. There is no evidence on record - She was brought to the hospital and the doctor found
that petitioner deviated from his usual, regular that she was suffering from septicemia post partum
homeward route or that interruptions occurred in the due to infected lacerations of the vagina. After 3 days
journey. from being discharged and of apparent recovery, she
- While the presumption of compensability and theory of died. Her cause of death was septicemia post
aggravation under the WCA, under which the Baldebrin partum. She was 33 years old, survived by her
case was decided, may have been abandoned, it is husband and 4 childre.
significant that the liberality of the law in general in - Manuel Belarmino filed a claim for DEATH BENEFITS,
favor of the workingman still subsists. The ECC which was denied by GSIS. GSIS held that the cause
should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee of death of Oania was not an occupational disease and
in deciding claims for compensability, especially where neither was there any showing that aforesaid ailment
there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work was contracted by reason of her employment. The
connection to the accident. alleged accident mentioned could not have precipitated
- Court is constrained not to consider the defense of the the death of Oania but rather the result of the infection
Street Peril Doctrine and instead interpret the law of her lacerated wounds as a result of her delivery at
liberally in favor of the employee because the home.
Employees’ Compensation Act is basically a social - ECC affirmed the GSIS’ denial. Hence, this petition.
legislation designed to afford relief to the working men ISSUE: WON Manuel’s claim for death benefits should be
and women in our society. granted
RULING: The denial of public respondents’ constitutes a

3. MANUEL BELARMINO VS. ECC AND GSIS grave abuse of discretion

FACTS: - RULE III, SECTION 1 – AMENDED RULES ON

- Petitioner’s wife Oania Belarmino was a classroom EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION enumerates the

teacher of DepEd assigned at the Buracan Elementary grounds for compensability of injury resulting in

school in Dimasalang, Masbate. She had been a disability or death of an employee, as follows:

classroom teacher for 11 years. Manuel, her husband

and herein petitioner, is also a public school teacher. SEC 1. GROUNDS
- At 9AM while performing her duties as a teacher, (a) For an injury and the resulting disability or
Oania, who was in her 8
th
month of pregnancy, death to be compensable, the injury must be the

accidentally slipped and fell on the classroom floor. result of an employment accident satisfying all of

Moments later, she complained of abdominal pain and the following conditions

stomach cramps. For several days, she continued to (1) The employee must have been injured at

suffer from abdominal pain and a feeling of heaviness the place where his work requires him to

in her stomach. Despite the advice of her co-teachers be;

(2) The employee must have been performing
his official functions, and
 (3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the 4. CIRIACO HINOGUIN V. ECC AND GSIS
employee must have been executing an FACTS:
order for the employer. - The deceased Sgt. Hinoguin began his military service
(b) For the sickness and the resulting disability or in 1974, when the Philippine Army called him to military
death to be compensable, the sickness must be the training. He later on enlisted in the Philippine Army as
result of an occupational disease listed under Annex a private first class.
“A” of these Rules with the conditions set therein - At the time of his death, he was holding the rank of
satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk Sergeant. Their headquarters was located at Bical,
of contracting the disease is increased by the working Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. He was the Detachment Non-
conditions commissioned Offier at Capintalan, NE.
(c) Only injury or sickness that occurred on or after - Sgt. Hinoguin and 2 members (Rogelio Clavo and
January 1, 1975 and the resulting disability or death Nicomedes Alibuyog) of his Detachment sought
shall be compensable under these Rules. permission from Captain Frankie Z. Besas,
- Septicemia post partum is admittedly not listed as an Commandind Officer, to go on overnight pass to Aritao,
occupational disease in her particular line of work as a Nueva Viszaya, “to settle an important matter thereat”.
classroom teacher. However, her death from that Captain Besas orally granted them permission and
ailment is compensable because an employment allowed them to take their issued firearms with them,
accident and conditions of her employment contributed considering that Aritao was regarded as a “critical
to its development. place”. Aritao had peace and order problems due to
- The condition of the classroom floor caused Oania to the presence of elements of NPA in the vicinity.
slip and fall and suffer injury as a result. The fall - The three proceeded to Aritao and arrived thereat at
precipitated the onset of recurrent abdominal pains about 1:30PM. They proceeded to the home of
which culminated in the premature termination of her Alibuyog’s parents where they had lunch. At 4PM, the
pregnancy with tragic consequences to her. Her fall 3 soldiers with a fourth man, a civilian and relative of
therefore was proximate or responsible cause that Alibuyog, had some gin and beer. At 7PM. They left to
set in motion an unbroken chain of events, leading return to their Company’s headquarters.
to her demise. - They boarded a tricycle, Hinoguin and Clavo seating
- Mrs. Belarmino’s fall was the primary injury that arose themselves in the trike while Alibuyog was behind the
in the course of her employment as a classroom driver. Upon reaching Aritao, Alibuyog dismounted,
teacher, hence, all the medical consequences from it walked towards and in front of the trike, holding his
are compensable. M16 Rifle in his right hand, not noticing that the rifle’s
- While it is true that if she had delivered the baby under safety lever was on “semi-automatic” and not on
sterile conditions in a hospital operating room instead “safety”. He accidentally touched the trigger, firing, and
of in the unsterile environment of her humble home, accidentally shot Hinoguin in the left, lower abdomen.
she would not have suffered septicemia post partum. - Hinoguin was rushed to the hospital. Capt. Besas
But who is to blame for her inability to afford a hospital hurried to the hospital upon being notified of the
delivery and the services of trained doctors and shooting. Hinoguin confirmed to Besas that he had
nurses? The court may take judicial notice of the been accidentally shot by Alibuyog. Hinoguin was later
meager salaries that the Government pays its moved to the AFP medical center and there he died on
teachers. August 7, 1985. Death certificate lists “septic shock”
as immediate cause of death, and “generalized
septicemia of peritonitis” as antecedent cause.
- An investigation concluded that the shooting was
purely accidental in nature. "SECTION 1. Grounds. — (a) For the injury and the
- Petitioner Ciriaco Hinoguin filed his claim for resulting disability or death to be compensable, the
compensation benefits under PD 626, claiming that the injury must be the result of an employment
death of his son was work-connected and therefore accident satisfying all of the following grounds:
compensable. library
- GSIS denied such claim on the ground that petitioner’s (1) The employee must have been injured at the
son was not at his work place nor performing his duty place where his work requires him to be;
as a soldier of the Philippine Army at the time of his (2) The employee must have been performing his
death. Such denial was confirmed by the Workmen’s official functions; and
Compensation Commission (WCC) (3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the
ISSUE: WON the death of Sgt. Hinoguin is compensable employee must have been executing an order for
under PD 626 the employer.
RULING: YES. - The concept of “work place” as referred to in Ground 1
- Since Hinoguin died on August 7, 1985, the applicable cannot always be literally applied to a soldier on active
law is to be found in Book Four, Title III of the Labor duty status, as if he were a machine operator or a
Code as amended. worker in an assembly line in a factory or a clerk in a
- It may be noted that the term “employee” includes a particular fixed office. Obviously, a soldier must go
“member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines”. where his company is stationed.
SECTION 1. Conditions to Entitlement. — - In the instant case, Sgt. Hinoguin and Dft. Alibuyog
(a) The beneficiaries of a deceased employee shall had permission from their Commanding officer to
be entitled to an income benefit if all of the proceed to Aritao. It appears to us that a place which
following conditions are satisfied:cl 1aw library soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at
(1) The employee had been duly reported to the cannot be different, legally speaking, from a place
System; where they are required to go by their commanding
(2) He died as a result of injury or sickness; officer. We note that the 3 soldiers were on an
and overnight pass which, notably, they did not utilize in
(3) The System has been duly notified of his full. They were not on vacation leave. They were
death, as well as the injury or sickness which likewise required or authorized to carry their
caused his death. firearms with which presumably they were to
His employer shall be liable for the benefit if defend themselves if NPA elements happened to
such death occurred before the employee is attack them.
duly reported for coverage of the System. - Also, it has already been pointed out above that the
th
Line of Duty Board of Officers of the 14 Infantry
Article 167 (k) of the Labor Code as amended Battalion HQ has already determined that the death of
defines a compensable "injury" quite simply as Hinoguin had occurred “in line of duty”. A soldier on
"any harmful change in the human organism from active duty status is really on 24 hours a day official
any accident arising out of and in the course of the duty status and is subject to military discipline and
employment." military law.
The Amended (Implementing) Rules have, however,
elaborated considerably on the simple and succinct
statutory provision. Rule III, Section 1 (a) reads:jgc
5. GSIS VS. CA AND FELONILA ALEGRE injury must be the result of an employment accident
FACTS: satisfying all of the following conditions:
- Private respondent Felonila Alegre’s deceased a. The employee must have been injured at the
husband, SPO2 Florencio Alegre, was a police officer place where his work requires him to be
assigned to the PNP station in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. b. The employee must have been performing his
- On December 6, 1994, he was driving his tricycle and official functions
ferrying passengers within the vicinity of Imelda c. If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the
Commercial Complex when SPO4 Alejandro Tenorio, employee must have been executing an order
Jr. confronted him regarding his tour of duty. Alegre for the employer.
allegedly snubbed Tenorio and even directed curse - Owing to the similarity of functions, that is, to keep
words upon the latter. A verbal tussle then ensued peace and order, and the risks assumed, the Court has
between the two which led to the fatal shooting of treated police officers similar to members of the AFP
Alegre. with regard to compensability of their deaths. Applying
- Felonila Alegre seasonably filed a claim for DEATH the case of Hinoguin v. ECC, members of the national
BENEFITS with petitioner GSIS pursuant to PD 626. police are by the nature of their functions, technically
GSIS denied the claim on the ground that at the time of on duty 24 hours a day because policemen are subject
Alegre’s death, he was performing a personal activity to call at any time and may be asked by their superiors
which was not work-connected. ECC affirmed GSIS’ or by any distressed citizen to assist in maintaining the
denial. peace and security of the community.
- Felonila Alegre obtained a favorable ruling in the CA. - While we agree that policemen, like soldiers, are at the
CA held that SPO2 Alegre’s death was work- beck and call of public duty as peace officers, the
connected and therefore, compensable. It further same does not justify the grant of compensation.
considered that as applied to a police officer, his - (Court cites cases – Hinoguin, Nitura, Alvaran) Relying
workplace is not confined to the police precinct or on several cases, it can be gleaned that the Court did
station but to any place where his services, as a not justify its grant of death benefits merely on account
lawman, to maintain peace and security are required. of the rule that soldiers or policemen are virtually
- Court of Appeals: At the time of his death, Alegre was working round-the-clock. The Court attempted in each
driving a tricycle at the northeastern part of the Imelda case to find a reasonable nexus between the absence
Commercial Complex where the police assistance of the deceased from his assigned place of work and
center is located. There can be no dispute therefore the incident that led to his death.
that he met his death literally in his place of work. It - Obviously, the matter SPO2 Alegre was attending to at
is true that the deceased was driving his tricycle with the time he met his death was intrinsically private and
passengers aboard when he was accosted by another unofficial in nature proceeding as it did from no
police officer. However, this argument overlooks the particular directive or permission of his superior officer.
fact that policemen, by nature of their functions are In the absence of such authority, or peacekeeping
deemed to be on a round-the-clock duty. nature of the act attended to by the policeman, there is
ISSUE: WON SPO2 Alegre’s death is compensable no justification for holding that SPO2 Alegre met the
RULING: NO. We grant GSIS’ petition. requisites set forth in the ECC guidelines.
- Under the pertinent guidelines of the ECC on
compensability, it is provided that for the injury and the
resulting disability or death to be compensable, the
6. CELERINO VALERIANO V. ECC AND GSIS - To be compensable, an injury must have resulted from
FACTS: an accident arising out of and in the course of
- Celerino Valeriano was employed as a fire truck employment. It must be shown that it was sustained
driver assigned at the San Juan Fire Station. He was within the scope of employment while the claimant was
standing along Santolan Road, QC, when he met a performing an act reasonably necessary or incidental
friend by the name of Alexander Agawin. They thereto or while following the orders of a superior.
decided to proceed to Bonanza Restaurant in EDSA Indeed, the standard of “work connection” must be
for dinner. On their way home at around 9:30PM, the satisfied even by one who invoked the 24-hour-
owner-type jeepney they were riding figured in a head- duty doctrine; otherwise, claim for compensability
on collision with another vehicle at an intersection. Due must be denied.
to the strong impact of the collision, Celerino was - “ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE
thrown out of the vehicle and was severely injured. He EMPLOYMENT”
was brought to several hospitals for treatment. ! Two components of the coverage formula “arising
- Celerino filed a claim for INCOME BENEFITS under out of” and “in the course of employment” – are said
PD 626 with GSIS. GSIS denied on the ground that the to be separate tests, which must be independently
injuries he sustained did not directly arise or result from satisfied. However, it should not be forgotten that
the nature of his work. He interposed an appeal to the the basic concept of compensation coverage is
ECC but the latter ruled against him, deciding that the unitary, not dual, and is best expressed in the
accident met by the appellant occurred outside of his word “work-connection” because an
time and place of work. uncompromising insistence on an independent
- COURT OF APPEALS: Agreed with the ECC. Injuries application of each of the two portions of the test
sustained were not work-connected. It must be recalled can, in certain cases, exclude clearly work-
that at the time of the accident, Celerino was already connected injuries.
dismissed from his regular 8-hour daily work. ! “Arising out of” – refer to the origin or cause of the
Notwithstanding his claim that he can be called to accident and are descriptive of its character
report for work anytime in case there is fire, or that his ! “In the course of” – refer to the time, place, and
position is akin to that of a military man, a contention circumstances under which the accident takes
we cannot support, still, there is not causative place.
connection between the injury he sustained and his - Thus, for injury to be compensable, the work-
work. Celerino’s invocation of the Hinoguin case is connection standard must be substantially satisfied.
misplaced. To sustain petitioners contention of The injury and the resulting disability sustained by
compensability would, in effect, make the employer, in reason of employment are compensable regardless of
this case, the State, the insurer against all perils. the place where the injured occurred, if it can be
- Valeriano argues that his claim for benefits is based on proven that at the time of the injury, the employee was
the ground that the exigency of his job as a fireman acting within the purview of his employment and
requires constant observance of his duties as such, performing an act reasonably necessary or incidental
and thus, he was “on call” when he met the accident. thereto. Valeriano was not able to demonstrate how his
ISSUES: WON injuries are work-connected, WON job as a firetruck driver was related to the injuries he
firemen, like soldiers, can be presumed to be on 24-hour had suffered.
duty. - In the case of Hinoguin and Nitura, both espoused the
- RULING: NO TO BOTH. position that the concept of “workplace” cannot always
be literally applied to a soldier in active duty status who
 is on a 24-hour official duty, except, when he is on separate tests, which must be independently satisfied.
vacation leave status. However, it should not be forgotten that the basic
- The circumstances in the present case do not call for concept of compensation coverage is unitary, not
the application of Hinoguin and Nitura. The 24-hour dual, and is best expressed in the word “work-
duty doctrine cannot be applied to petitioner’s case, connection” because an uncompromising insistence
because he was neither at his assigned workplace, nor on an independent application of each of the two
in pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met an portions of the test can, in certain cases, exclude
accident. There is no reasonable connection between clearly work-connected injuries.
his injuries and his work as a firetruck driver. - An injury of accident is said to arise “in the course of
employment” when it takes place within the period of

7. ILOILO DOCK AND ENGINEERING CO. V. ECC and employment at a place where the employee
IRENEA PABLO reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties
FACTS: or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto.

- At about 5:02PM, Teodoro Pablo, who was employed - GENERAL RULE IN WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

as a mechanic of IDECO, while walking on his way LAW – GOING AND COMING RULE: In the absence

home, was shot to death in front of, and about 20 of special circumstances, an employee injured in,

meters away, from the main IDECO gate, on a private going to, or coming from his place of work is excluded

road commonly called the IDECO road. The motive for from the benefits of WCA.

the crime was still unknown as the slayer, Martin - EXCEPTIONS:

Cordero, was himself killed before he could be tried for 1. Where the employee is proceeding to or from his

Pablo’s death. work on the premises of his employer

- At the time of the killing, Pablo’s companion was 2. Where the employee is about to enter or about to

Rodolfo Galopez, another employee. Pablo and leave the premises of his employer by way of the

Galopez both finished overtime work at 5:00PM and exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress.

was going home. From the main IDECO gate to the 3. Where the employee is charged, while on his way to

spot where he was killed, there were 4 carinderias on or from his place of employment or at his home, or

the left, and another 2 and a residential house on the during his employment, with some duty or special
right. The entire length of the road is nowhere stated in errand connected with his employment

the record. 4. Where the employer, as an incident of the

- IDECO: Commission erred employment, provides the means of transportation to

a. In holding that Pablo’s death occurred in the and from the place of employment

course of employment and in presuming that it - In this case, we address ourselves particularly to an
nd
arose out of the employment examination and consideration of the 2 exception
b. In applying the proximity rule known as the proximity rule.
c. In holding that Pablo’s death was an accident - WCA, being essentially American in origin and text, it is

within the purview of the Workmen’s not amiss to pay deference to pertinent American

Compensation Act. jurisprudence.

ISSUE: WON the death of Pablo was compensable - Suppose, however, that the injury occurs on the way to

RULING: YES. work or on the way home from work. The question here

- Two components of the coverage formula “arising out is limited to whether the injuries are “in the course of”
of” and “in the course of employment” – are said to be and not “out of” the employment. How the injury
occurred is not in point. Street risks, whether the
 employee was walking or driving, and all other similar - Assault, although resulting from a deliberate act of the
questions deal with the risk of injury or “out of” the slayer, is considered accident within the meaning of
employment. “In the course of employment” deals Section 2 of WCA, since the word “accident” is
mainly with the element of time and space, or “time, intended to indicate that the “act causing the injury
place, and circumstances. shall be casual or unforeseen, an act for which the
- PREMISES not only include premises owned by the injured party is not legally responsible. Where assault
employer but also premises leased, hired, supplied, or is proven to be work-connected, compensation is to be
used by him. There is no reason in principle why states awarded.
should not protect employees for a reasonable period - It has been said that an employment may either
of time prior to or after working hours and for a increase risk of assault because of its nature, or be the
reasonable distance before reaching or after leaving subject-matter of a dispute leading to the assault. The
the employer’s premises. first kind of employment, the so-called “increased risk”
- PROXIMITY RULE: An employee is generally jobs, comprehend:
considered to be in the course of his employment while a. Jobs involving dangerous duties ex. Security
coming to or going from his work, when, though off the guards
actual premises of his employer, he is still in close b. Jobs where the employee is placed in a dangerous
proximity thereto, is proceeding diligently at an environment
appropriate time, by reasonable means, over the c. Jobs of employees whose work takes them on the
natural, practical, customary, convenient and highway
recognized way of ingress or egress either on land - On the other hand, the employment itself may be the
under the control of the employer, or on an adjacent subject-matter of a dispute leading to the assault as
property with the express or implied consent of the where a supervisor is assaulted by workmen he has
employer. fired, or where the argument was over the performance
- However, the compensation acts have been generally of work or possession of tools or the like
held not to authorize an award in case of an injury or - The statute is not intended to relieve completely an
death from a peril that is common to all mankind, or to employee from the burden of showing that accidental
which the public at large is exposed. The question of injuries suffered by him actually were sustained in the
whether an injury arises out of and in the course of the course of his employment. There must be some
employment is one dependent upon the facts of each evidence from which the conclusion can be drawn that
case. And in some cases, where an injury occurred the injuries did arise out of and in the course of the
while the employee was going to or from work, but was employment. Proof of the accident will give rise to the
in the street in front of the employer’s premises, it has statutory presumption only where some connection
been held compensable. appears between the accident and the employment.
- A substantial and fair ground to justify an extension of - The discussion of the coverage formula, "arising out of
the course of employment beyond the premises of the and in the course of employment," was opened with
employer is to extend its scope to the necessary risks the suggestion that, while "course" and "arising" were
and hazards associated with the employment. These put under separate headings for convenience, some
risks may or may not be on the premises of the interplay between the two factors should be observed
employer and for this reason, we cannot distinguish in the various categories discussed. The 2 tests are not
between extended risks on public highways and private kept in air-tight compartments, but have merged into a
pathways. single concept of work-connection.
- EMPLOYEES CAUSE OF DEATH: ASSAULT - IN SUM:
1. Workmen's compensation is granted if the injuries the employer cannot continue has been held to be
result from an accident which arise out of and in the usually one of fact.
course of employment. - QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PRIVATE
2. Both the "arising" factor and the "course" factor must ROAD: In granting compensation, the Commission
be present. If one factor is weak and the other is said that “the road where the deceased was shot was
strong, the injury is compensable, but not where both of IDECO’s ownership. Even if ownership were open to
factors are weak. Ultimately, the question is whether question, there was no doubt that its private character
the accident is work-connected. was exploited by IDECO for the purpose of its own
3. In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim, the business, so that the shooting of the deceased may be
same is presumed to come within the provisions of the considered to have taken place on the premises.
Workmen's Compensation Act. But a preliminary link IDECO denies ownership.
must first be shown to exist between the injury and the - But while IDECO does not own the private road, it
employment. Thus if the injury occurred in cannot be denied that it was using the same as the
the course of employment, it is presumed to principal means of ingress and egress. The private
have arisen out of the employment. road leads directly to its main gate. Its right to use the
4. The "course" factor applies to time, place and road must the perforce proceed from either an
circumstances. This factor is present if the injury takes easement of right of war or a lease. In either case,
place within the period of employment, at a place the IDECO should logically and properly be charged
where the employee may be, and while he is fulfilling with security control of the road. IDECO owed its
his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental employees a safe passage to its premises.
thereto. - The spot where Pablo was shot is immediately
5. The rule is that an injury sustained while the employee proximate to the IDECO’s premises. Considering this
goes to or comes from his place of work, is not of the fact, and the further facts that Pablo had just finished
employment. overtime work, and was killed barely two minutes after
6. The exception to the rule is an injury sustained off the dismissal from work, the injury was sustained in the
employee's premises, but while in close proximity course of employment.
thereto and while using a customary means of ingress - Employer owes a duty of “safe passage” to an
and egress. The reason for extending the scope of employee to the point where he can reach the proper
"course of employment" to off-premises injuries is that arrival or departure from his work seems without
there is a causal connection between the work and the question.
hazard. - That part of the road where Pablo was killed is in very
7. An "assault" may be considered an "accident" within close proximity to the employer’s premises. It is an
the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The “access area” so clearly related to the employer’s
employment may either increase risk of assault premises as to be fairly treated as a part of the
because of its nature or be the subject-matter of a employer’s premises. Hence, the injury was in the
dispute leading to the assault. course of employment, and there automatically arises
- REGARDING THE CASE AT HAND, we must keep in the presumption that the injury by assault arose out of
mind always that no cover-all formula can be spelled the employment.
out with specificity, that the particular facts and
circumstances of each case must be inquired into, and
that in any perceptive inquiry, the question as to where
the line should be drawn beyond which the liability of
8. GENEROSO ALANO V. ECC ISSUE: WON the income benefits should be granted.
FACTS: RULING: YES.
- Dedicacion de Vera, a government employee during - When an employee is accidentally injured at a point
her lifetime, worked as principal of Salinap Community reasonably proximate to the place at work, while he is
School in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. Her tour of going to and from his work, such injury is deemed to
duty was from 7:30-5:30PM. have arisen out of and in the course of his
- On Nov. 29, 1976, at 7AM, while she was waiting for a employment.
ride at Plaza Jaycee in San Carlos City on her way to - In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased died
the school, she was bumped and run over by a while going to her place of work. She was at the place
speeding Toyota mini-bus which resulted in her where, as the petitioner puts it, her job necessarily
instantaneous death. She is survived by her four sons required her to be if she was to reach her place of work
and a daughter. on time. There was nothing private or personal about
- Generoso Alano, brother of the deceased, filed a claim the school principal’s being at the place of the
for INCOME BENEFITS with the GSIS for and in accident. She was there because her employment
behalf of Dedicacion’s children. required her to be there.
- GSIS denied on the ground that `the injury upon which - The decision of the Employees’ Compensation
compensation is being claimed is not an employment Commission appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and
accident satisfying all the conditions prescribed by law.’ the Government Service Insurance System is ordered
- ECC affirmed the denial of GSIS. It stated that Section to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of Twelve
I (a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) as death benefit and
Compensation specifically provides that: the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Pesos
(P1,200.00) as attorney’s fees.
"For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be
compensable, the injury must be the result of an 9. NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS INC./
employment accident satisfying all the following conditions: BARBER SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD. V.
(1) The employee must have sustained the injury during his ESMERALDO ILLESCAS
working hours; FACTS:
(2) The employee must have been injured at the place - -Respondent Esmeraldo C. Illescas entered into a
where his work requires him to be; and Contract of Employment with petitioner NFD
(3) The employee must have been performing his official International Manning Agents, Inc., acting for and in
functions." behalf of its foreign principal, co-petitioner Barber Ship
Management, Ltd. Under the contract, respondent was
- According to the respondent Commission, the employed as Third Officer of M/V Shinrei for a period of
deceased’s accident did not meet any of the nine months, with a basic monthly salary of
aforementioned conditions. First, the accident occurred US$854.00.
at about 7:00 a.m. or thirty minutes before the - -The employment contract complied with the Philippine
deceased’s working hours. Second, it happened not at Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
her workplace but at the plaza where she usually waits Standard Contract for Seafarers, and the standard
for a ride to her work. Third, she was not then terms and conditions governing the employment of
performing her official functions as school principal nor Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels under
was she on a special errand for the school. The case, Department Order No. 4, series of 2000.
therefore, was dismissed.
- When respondent had been on board the vessel for meantime, respondent filed a Complaint with the
seven months, Captain Jaspal Singh and Chief Officer Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
Maydeo Rajev ordered respondent to carry 25 fire - The parties explored the possibility of settlement.
hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop, Pandiman Philippines, Inc, in behalf of petitioners,
then back to the deck to refit the caps. The next day, offered to pay respondent disability benefit in the
while carrying a heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, amount of US$16,795.00, corresponding to Grade 8
respondent felt a sudden snap on his back, with pain disability under the POEA Standard Contract for
that radiated down to the left side of his hips. He Seafarers. Respondent, through counsel, refused the
immediately informed the ship captain about his offer on the ground that the injury sustained by him
condition, and he was advised to take pain relievers. was caused by an accident, which was compensable in
As the pain was initially tolerable, he continued with his the amount of US$90,000.00 under the Collective
work. After a few days, the pain became severe, and Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
respondent had difficulty walking. - Since the parties failed to arrive at an agreement, the
- Despite the lighter work assigned to respondent, he NLRC directed them to file their Position Papers. In his
continued to experience excruciating pain. Petitioner Position Paper, respondent submitted that Section 20
was then referred to a doctor upon arrival (B.6) of the POEA Standard Contract for Seafarers
of M/V Shinrei at the port of Hay Point, Australia. The provides:
doctor declared that respondent was unfit to work, and
recommended that respondent return home for further In case of permanent total or partial disability of a seafarer
management. He was then repatriated to the during the term of employment caused by either injury or
Philippines. illness, the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance
- Respondent was referred to the Alegre Medical Clinic with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of
under the care of Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II. Dr. Alegre his Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from the
advised respondent to undergo laminectomy and illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the
discectomy. rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or
- As his condition did not improve, respondent sought disease was contracted.
the expertise of Dr. Marciano F. Almeda, Jr., a
specialist in occupational medicine and orthopedics, at - However, respondent stated that he is a member of the
the Medical Center Muntinlupa for the assessment and Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the
evaluation of his health condition and/or disability. Dr. Philippines (AMOSUP), which has a CBA with
Almeda found that respondent sustained partial petitioners. Under the CBA, he is entitled to a higher
permanent disability with an impediment Grade of 11 disability benefit in the amount of US$90,000.00, since
(14.93%), described as "slight rigidity or one-third loss his injury resulted from an accident while carrying a
of motion or lifting power of the trunk" under the POEA basketful of heavy fire hydrant caps on board the
Standard Contract for Seafarers. Dr. Almeda declared vessel. Respondent prayed that petitioners be ordered
that respondent was unfit to work at sea in any to pay him disability benefit in the amount of
capacity as a seaman. US$90,000.00, illness allowance equivalent to 120
- Petitioners received a letter from respondent's counsel, days, as well as moral and exemplary damages, and
demanding the payment of disability benefit. The claim attorney's fees.
was referred to Pandiman Philippines, Inc., the local - Petitioners countered that it is the POEA Standard
correspondent of the P&I Club with which petitioner Contract for Seafarers, and not the CBA, that governs
Barber Ship Management Ltd. was affiliated. In the this case. They stated that Black's Law Dictionary
 defined "accident" as an unusual, fortuitous, ISSUES
unexpected, unforeseen or unlooked for event. They 1. WON the disability was caused by an accident
argued that respondent's disability was not the result of 2. WON the disability is compensable under the CBA
an accident, as respondent was merely performing his 3. WON respondent is entitled to attorney’s fees
normal duty of transporting fire hydrant caps from the RULING: Petition is denied.
deck to the engine workshop, then back to the deck to - CBA: ARTICLE 13 COMPENSATION FOR DEATH
refit the caps. During the performance thereof, no AND DISABILITY
unusual, unforeseen and unexpected event transpired If a seafarer/officer, due to no fault of his own, suffers
as proved by the absence of any accident report. permanent disability as a result of an accident while
Petitioners argued that, since no accident took place, serving on board or while traveling to or from the
the disability benefits under the CBA do not apply to vessel on Company's business or due to marine peril,
this case. and as a result, his ability to work is permanently
- LA: The Labor Arbiter held that the injury suffered by reduced, totally or partially, the Company shall pay him
respondent was the result of an accident arising out of, a disability compensation which including the amounts
and in the course of, his employment while carrying the stipulated by the POEA's Rules and Regulations Part II,
heavy fire hydrant caps, and that his injury was Section C, shall be maximum of US$70,000.00 for
unexpected and unforeseen by him. Respondent was ratings and US$90,000.00 for officers.
entitled to disability benefit under the CBA. The Labor
Arbiter held that respondent's disability was 100% A seafarer/officer who is disabled as a result of any
compensable under the CBA in the amount of injury, and who is assessed as less than 50%
US$90,000.00, and not merely under the Standard permanently disabled, but permanently unfit for further
Crew Contract. service at sea in any capacity, shall also be entitled to
- NLRC modified the decision of LA. The NLRC held that a 100% compensation.
the injury sustained by respondent was not the result of - ACCIDENT: According to Black Law Dictionary, it is an
an accident, although it arose out of his work. It stated unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence;
that the task of carrying hydrant caps was not a something that does not occur in the usual course of
fortuitous, unusual or unforeseen event, or a marine events or that could not be reasonably anticipated, an
peril. According to the NLRC, back pains or chest- unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to
trunk-spine injuries are inherent in the job of carrying mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct.
heavy objects, and the injury may occur over a period - PHIL LAW DICTIONARY: That which happens by
of time or on the spot depending upon the physical chance or fortuitously, without intention and design,
strength and posture of the workers. NLRC deleted the and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen.
award for sickness allowance and attorney’s fees. - It is a fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening, an
- CA: held that respondent's disability resulted from an event happening without any human agency, or if
accident as the injury was unforeseen and happened happening wholly or partly through human agency, an
without any fault on his part. The Labor Arbiter event which under the circumstances is unusual and
correctly applied Article 13 of the CBA in awarding unexpected by the person to whom it happens
respondent disability benefit in the amount of - The word may be employed as denoting a calamity,
US$90,000.00. NLRC acted with grave abuse of casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury
disregarding the CBA. resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence;
any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence, that causes
 injury, loss, suffering or death; some untoward if petitioners did not withhold payment of a smaller
occurrence aside from the usual course of events. disability benefit, respondent was compelled to litigate
- The Court holds that the snap on the back of to be entitled to a higher disability benefit.
respondent was not an accident, but an injury -END-
sustained by respondent from carrying the heavy
basketful of fire hydrant caps, which injury
resulted in his disability. The injury cannot be said to
be the result of an accident, that is, an unlooked for
mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the
injury resulted from the performance of a
duty. Although respondent may not have expected the
injury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy
objects can cause back injury, as what happened in
this case.
- Although the disability of respondent was not caused
by an accident, his disability is still compensable under
Article 13 of the CBA under the following provision:

A seafarer/officer who is disabled as a result of any

injury, and who is assessed as less than 50%
permanently disabled, but permanently unfit for
further service at sea in any capacity, shall also be
entitled to a 100% compensation.
- The Court notes that the CBA states that the degree of
disability, which the company is liable to pay, shall be
determined by a doctor appointed by the company. In
this case, the POEA schedule is the basis of the
assessment whether a seafarer's permanent disability
is 50 percent or more, or less than 50 percent.
- The Court finds merit in the reasons stated by Dr.
Almeda in his Medical Report for declaring respondent
unfit to work in any capacity as a
seaman. Respondent is, therefore, entitled to disability
benefit in the amount of US$90,000.00 under the CBA.
- With regard to attorney’s fees, the Court agrees with
the CA that respondent is entitled to the same under
ART 2208 of the Civil Code. This case involves the
propriety of the award of disability compensation under
the CBA to respondent, who worked as a seaman in
the foreign vessel of petitioner Barber Ship
Management Ltd. The award of attorney's fees is
justified under Article 2208 (2) of the Civil Code. Even