GSIS vs.

CA and Alegre

Facts:
Private respondent, Felonilla Alegre, who was married to SP02 Florencio Alegre, claims that herhusband was killed in relation to his
duty when he was assigned in PNP station in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Saiddeceased was driving his tricycle and ferrying passenger with
in the vicinity of Imelda CommercialComplex when he met SP04 Alejandro Tenorio Jr whom he had an altercation with by reason
the tour ofduty the former was engaged with that led to verbal tussle between the two police officers whichtranspire a fatal
shooting that resulted to the death of the deceased. Private respondent has now filed aclaim for the death benefits she was
entitled pursuant to PD 626 with petitioner, GSIS. GSIS denied suchclaim and was further affirmed by the ECC when a subsequent
appeal was taken by private respondent.

However CA reversed the decision of appellate courts stating that SP02 Alegre’s death was within and has relation to work
therefore compensable. A petition for review for certiorari was filed by the GSISand was given due course.

Petitioner contends that the guidelines are laid and the following conditions should be satisfied and in order for one’s injury resulting
to death or disability to be compensable.
1.The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be;
2. The employeemust have been performing his official functions;
3. If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employeemust have been executing an order for the employer. Which the deceased has
not satisfied therefore nodeath benefits may be given to private respondent.Issue: WON SP02 Alegre was engaged in performance
of duty

Held:
The court ruled in the negative. It was explained by the court that the 24 duty doctrine is notapplicable in the case at bar even
if such doctrine applies to soldiers should as well apply to policemenby reason that the nature of their function are subjected to
be summoned at any time and may be askedby their superiors or by any distressed citizen to assist in maintaining the peace
and security of thecommunity therefore private respondent should be denied the claims by reason that the matter SPO2Alegre
was attending to at the time he met his death, that of ferrying passengers for a fee, wasintrinsically private and unofficial in nature
proceeding as it did from no particular directive orpermission of his superior officer which was the complete opposite in the cases
of Hinoguin and Nitura.Petition was hereby granted

Valeriano vs. ECC and GSIS, June 8, 2000 GR 136200

Facts:
Celestino Valeriano was employed as a firetruck driver. On the evening of July 3, 1985, after having dinner with a friend, Valeriano
met an accident and was severely injured when the vehicle he was on collided with another. Valeriano claimed for benefits from
the GSIS which the latter denied for being non-compensable. The ECC and CA sustained the system, reasoning that the injury
resulted not from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment nor was it work-connected.

Issue: Whether or not the injuries sustained by VAleriano in the collision was compensable.
Ruling:

Valeriano’s injuries were non-compensable.

Valeriano’s contention, citing the Hinoguin and Nitura cases, that the 24-hour doctrine be applied to his case since the exigency
of his job demand it to be so was held untenable by the Court. The Court did not find any reasonable connection between his
injuries and his work as a firetruck driver. Applying the principle laid down in the Alegre case, the 24-hour doctrine is not meant to
embrace all acts and circumstances of an employee though he be on active “on call” duty. Valeriano was neither at his assigned
work place nor in pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met the accident. He was also not doing an act within his duty and
authority as a firetruck driver, or any other act of such nature, at the time he sustained his injuries. In fact, he was pursuing a purely
personal and social function when the accident happened. The accident not work-connected was, therefore, non-compensable.

Iloilo Doc & Engineering Co. V. Workmen’s Compensation Commission

27 SCRA 103
FACTS:
Teodoro Pablo and Rodolfo Galopez, had just finished overtime work at 5:00 pm and was going home. At around 5:02 pm, while
Pablo and Galopez were walking along the IDECO road, about20 meters from the IDECO main gate, Pablo was shot by Martin
Cordero. The motive for the crime was and still unknown since Martin Cordero was himself killed before he could be tried for Pablo’s
death.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Pablo’s death occurred in the course of employment and arising out of the employment.
2. Whether the PROXIMITY RULE should apply in this case.
3. Whether the death of Pablo was an accident within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

HELD:
1. YES. Workmen’s compensation is granted if the injuries result from an accident which arises out of and in the course of
employment. Both the “arising” factor and the “course” factor must be present. If one factor is weak and the other is strong, the
injury is compensable but not where both factors are weak. Ultimately, the question is whether the accident is work connected.
The words “arising out of” refer to the origin or cause of the accident and are descriptive of its character, while the words “in the
course” refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident takes place. The presumption that the injury arises
out of and in the course of employment prevails where the injury occurs on the employer’s premises. While the IDECO does not
own the private road, it cannot be denied that it was using the same as the principal means of ingress and egress. The private
road leads directly to its main gate. Its right to use the road must then perforce proceed from either an easement of right of way
or a lease. Its right therefore is either a legal one or a contractual one. In either case the IDECO should logically and properly be
charged with security control of the road.

2. YES. The general rule in workmen’s compensation law known as going and coming rule provides 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 following are the exceptions: a. Where the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the premises of
his employer b. Where the employee is about to enter or about to leave the premises of his employer by way of exclusive or
customary means of ingress and egress. 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. Where the employer, as
an incident of the employment provides the means of transportation to and from the place of employment. The second exception
is known as the “proximity rule.” The place where the employee was injured being immediately proximate to his place of work, the
accident in question must be deemed to have occurred within the zone of his employment and therefore arose out of or in the
course thereof.

3. YES. An “assault” although resulting from a deliberate act of the slayer, is considered an “accident” within the meaning of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act since the word accident is intended to indicate that the act causing the injury shall be casual or
unforeseen, an act for which the injured party is not legally responsible.