ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
JULIANA
VDA. DE LICARDO,
G. R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 -versus-WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
GUERRERO, J.: This is a Petition for Review of the Decision of Associate Medical Commissioner Herminia Castelo Sotto, M.D. in R04WC Case No. 9926, entitled "Juliana Vda. de Licardo, for herself and in behalf of her children, Maria Teresa, Maria Luisa and Jesus, all surnamed Licardo, versus Otis Elevator Company", denying her claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, for the death of Jorge B. Licardo, as well as the resolution of the Commission en banc denying her motion for reconsideration. The deceased, Jorge B. Licardo, was in the employ of Otis Elevator Company located at Marquez de Comillas Street, as an elevator mechanic-examiner since 1947 with a last rate of salary at P83.04 a week. But since 1960 and up to this last day of work on April 23, 1969, he was assigned to service and repair the elevators at Philamlife Building at the United Nations Avenue, Manila. By reason thereof, he reported for work directly at the Philamlife, not at the office of Otis Elevator Company. However, in the maintenance of the elevators, he occasionally needed parts for replacement purposes and equipment and whenever the necessity for them arose, he had to render the extra service of errand or messenger work to secure from respondent company what he needed.cralaw:red In one of such occasions, specifically on April 23, 1969, he left home early at 6:00 a.m. informing Ms wife that he had to pass by respondent's office to get some spare parts and equipment, boarded a De Dios bus, a public utility, and alighted at Ayala Boulevard, which is around a block away from respondent's office. While crossing, he figured in an accident. He was the victim of a hit and run "speed maniac" who left him lying unconscious along the boulevard. Soon after the mishap which occurred at 7:10 a.m., he was given emergency treatment at the Singian Clinic but had to be transferred to the Philippine General Hospital where he expired. [Exhibit "B", Certificate of Death]. His cause of death was listed as follows: "Traumatic fracture of the skull with subarachnoid hemorrhages and maceration of the brain." [Post mortem certificate of death].[1] Petitioner's claim for death compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, was dismissed in a decision dated January 22, 1970 of the Acting Referee, Regional Office No. 4. Her motion for reconsideration having been denied, too, the said Regional Office forwarded the entire records to the Workmen's Compensation Conunission for review under Section 49 of the Act. Unfortunately, the Commission, through Associate Medical Commissioner Herminia Castelo-Sotto, M.D. affirmed the decision of the Acting Referee on June 28, 1972. Quoted hereunder is a portion of the aforesaid decision:
Upon appeal to the Commission en banc, three [3] members of the Commission out of four [4] members, found "no valid reason to modify or alter, much less, reverse said decision" in a Resolution dated September 29, 1972. Associate Commissioner Eugenio I. Sagmit, Jr. penned a dissenting opinion. Hence this petition, in support of which, petitioner assigns by way of errors the following, to wit: [1] The Honorable Commission erred in not considering the incident which befell the late Jorge B. Licardo on the date he met the accident which caused his death as having arisen out and in the course of his employment as contemplated by Section 2 of Act No. 3428, as amended; [2] The Honorable Commission erred in not considering that late Jorge B. Licardo was on a special duty or special errand for his employer on the date he met the accident as an element of "arising out of" and "in the course of " employment relationship; [3] The Honorable Commission erred in not considering the respondent's act in extending medical services and hospitalization to the late Jorge B. Licardo, as an admission of liability; and [4] The Honorable Commission erred in not considering the respondent herein to have failed to file a reasonable controversion and thereby had waived its right to contest the compensibility of the instant claim.[3] The main issue raised in this petition involves the "going to and coming from work" rule or the "street peril" principle. The general rule is that "in the absence of special circumstances, an employee injured, in going to, or coming from his place of work is excluded from the benefits of workmen's compensation acts." The reason given is that accidents do not arise out of and in the course of employment. [Iloilo Dock and Engineering Co. vs. WCC, 26 SCRA 102; Afable vs. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 58 Phil. 39]. This rule, however, admits of exceptions. The very case of Afable says that "we do not of course mean to imply that an employee can never recover for injuries suffered while on his way to and from work. That depends on the nature of his employment." The case of Iloilo Dock Engineering Co. even enumerates four well-recognized exceptions, to wit: [1] where the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the premises of his employer; [2] where the employee is about to enter or about to leave the premises of his employer by way of the exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress; [3] where the employee is charged, while on his way to or from his place of employment or at his home, or during his employment, with some duty or special errand connected with his employment; and [4] where the employer, as an incident of the employment, provides the means of transportation to and from his place of employment.cralaw:red Among the cases decided in this jurisdiction granting compensation under the exceptions to this rule are the following:
Following the rule enunciated in these cases, We hold that the death of the late Jorge B. Licardo arose out of and in the course of his employment. It is clear that he could not have had any other reason to leave his residence early on that fateful morning of April 23, 1969 but to perform an extra task, different from his designation as elevator mechanic-examiner, that is, to pass by the office of his employer, Otis Elevator Company, to get spare parts and equipment to be used at his assigned place of work at Philamlife Building. At the time of the accident in question, he was performing a special messengerial work which was not part of his daily morning routine of reporting for work. If not for his exemplary devotion to duty and his special concern in rendering efficient and prompt service in the repair of elevators, he would not have performed this extra errand work. And if not for this special errand, he would not have been there at that precise place at the tragic moment. To deny, therefore, death compensation to the heirs of an employee who died while in the pursuit of accomplishing something for the good of the service, is violative of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which was enacted to assuage peculiarily the sufferings of the heirs of employees who die of illnesses or accidents which arise out of or in the course of employment. The fact that the deceased employee herein had passed by his employer's office many times before does not remove his being at the accident site on April 23, 1969 from its special character as an extra work. The primordial consideration is whether or not such work is an employee's daily, normal routine work. In this case, it is not.cralaw:red While We do not
agree with the third and fourth
assignments of errors of petitioner for the reasons, respectively, that
respondent's act of extending medical services and hospitalization is
not
an admission of liability but merely performs the functions of
dispensing
with the giving of notice of injury[4]
and that respondent had, in fact, filed a seasonable controvesion of
the
claim, as shown in Annexes "A" and "B" of its answer to the petition,
We
are of the firm view that the case herein is compensable.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 28, 1972 of the Commission and the Resolution dated September 29, 1972 of the Commission en banc, are hereby reversed and set aside and respondent Otis Elevator Company is ordered: 1. To pay petitioner the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS [P6,000.00] as death compensation benefits and TWO HUNDRED PESOS [P200.00] for burial expenses; 2. To reimburse petitioner of the sum of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS [P2,200.00] for medical and hospital expenses incurred; 3. To pay petitioners the sum equivalent to 10% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; and 4. To pay the successor of the Workmen's Compensation Commission the amount of SIXTY-ONE PESOS [P61.00] as administrative fees. SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.cralaw:red ________________________________
[1]
Decision of Acting Referee, Regional Office No. 4.
|
|