TodayisMonday,April24,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L48594March16,1988

GENEROSOALANO,petitioner,
vs.
EMPLOYEES'COMPENSATIONCOMMISSION,respondent.

GUTTIERREZ,JR.,J.:

TheonlyissueinthiscaseiswhetherornottheinjurysustainedbythedeceasedDedicaciondeVeraresultingin
herdeathiscompensableunderthelawasanemploymentaccident.

ThefactsasfoundbytherespondentEmployees'CompensationCommissionareasfollows:

Dedicacion de Vera, a government employee during her lifetime, worked as principal of Salinap
CommunitySchoolinSanCarlosCity,Pangasinan.Hertourofdutywasfrom7:30a.m.to5:30p.m.
OnNovember29,1976,at7:00A.M.,whileshewaswaitingforarideatPlazaJayceeinSanCarlos
Cityonherwaytotheschool,shewasbumpedandrunoverbyaspeedingToyotaminibuswhich
resultedinherinstantaneousdeath.Sheissurvivedbyherfoursonsandadaughter.

OnJune27,1977,GenerosoC.Alano,brotherofthedeceased,filedtheinstantclaimforincome
benefitwiththeGSISforandinbehalfofthedecedent'schildren.Theclaimwas,however,deniedon
the same date on the ground that the "injury upon which compensation is being claimed is not an
employment accident satisfying all the conditions prescribed by law." On July 19, 1977 appellant
requestedforareconsiderationofthesystem'sdecision,butthesamewasdeniedandtherecords
ofthecasewereelevatedtothisCommissionforreview.(Rollo,p.12)

The respondent Commission affirmed the decision of the Government Service Insurance System. It stated that
Section I (a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation specifically provides that: "For the
injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of an employment
accidentsatisfyingallthefollowingconditions(1)Theemployeemusthavesustainedtheinjuryduringhisworking
hours (2) The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be and (3) The
employeemusthavebeenperforminghisofficialfunctions."(Rollo,p.13)

According to the respondent Commission, the deceased's accident did not meet any of the aforementioned
conditions.First,theaccidentoccuredatabout7:00a.m.orthirtyminutesbeforethedeceased'sworkinghours.
Second,ithappenednotatherworkplacebutattheplazawheresheusuallywaitsforaridetoherwork.Third,
she was not then performing her official functions as school principal nor was she on a special errand for the
school.Thecase,therefore,wasdismissed.

ThepetitionerthenwenttothisCourtonpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Heallegesthatthedeceased'saccident
has"arisenoutoforinthecourseofheremployment."

TherespondentCommissionreiteratesitsviewsandcontendsthatthepresentprovisionoflawonemployment
injuryisdifferentfromthatprovidedintheoldWorkmen'sCompensationAct(Act3428)andis"ategoricalinthat
theinjurymusthavebeensustainedatworkwhileattheworkplace,orelsewherewhileexecutinganorderfrom
theemployer."(Rollo,p.44)

TheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystemwhichreceivedacopyoftheCourt'sresolutionrequiringtheparties
tosubmittheirmemoranda,howevermanifeststhatitdoesnotappeartobeapartytothecasebecauseithad
notbeenimpleadedasapartythereto.

Weruleinfavorofthepetitioner.
This case does not come to us with a novel issue. In the earlier case of Vda. de Torbela v. Employees'
CompensationCommission(96SCRA260,263,264)whichhasasimilarfactualbackground,thisCourtheld:

ItisafactthatJoseP.Torbela,Sr.diedonMarch3,1975atabout5:45o'clockinthemorningdueto
injuriessustainedbyhiminavehicularaccidentwhilehewasonhiswaytoschoolfromBacolodCity,
wherehelived,toHinigaranNegrosOccidentalwheretheschoolofwhichhewastheprincipalwas
located and that at the time of the accident he had in his possession official papers he allegedly
workedoninhisresidenceontheeveofhisdeath.

Theclaimiscompensable.Whenanemployeeisaccidentallyinjuredatapointreasonablyproximate
totheplaceatwork,whileheisgoingtoandfromhiswork,suchinjuryisdeemedtohavearisenout
ofandinthecourseofhisemployment.

In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased died while going to her place of work. She was at the place
where,asthepetitionerputsit,herjobnecessarilyrequiredhertobeifshewastoreachherplaceofworkon
time.Therewasnothingprivateorpersonalabouttheschoolprincipal'sbeingattheplaceoftheaccident.She
wastherebecauseheremploymentrequiredhertobethere.

AstotheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem'smanifestation,weholdthatitisnotfataltothiscasethatitwas
notimpleadedasapartyrespondent.AsearlyasthecaseofLaOv.Employees'CompensationCommission,(97
SCRA782)uptoCabanerov.Employees'CompensationCommission(111SCRA413)andrecently,Clementev.
Government Service Insurance System (G.R. No. L47521, August 31,1987), this Court has ruled that the
Government Service Insurance System is a proper party in employees' compensation cases as the ultimate
implementingagencyoftheEmployees'CompensationCommission.Weheldintheaforecitedcasesthat"thelaw
and the rules refer to the said System in all aspects of employee compensation including enforcement of
decisions(Article182ofImplementingRules)."

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE
and the Government Service Insurance System is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of Twelve
ThousandPesos(P12,000.00)asdeathbenefitandthesumofOneThousandTwoHundredPesos(P1,200.00)
asattorney'sfees.

SOORDERED.

Fernan(Chairman),Feliciano,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation