TodayisMonday,April24,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.81327December4,1989

CRISPINAVANO,petitioner,
vs.
GOVERNMENTSERVICEINSURANCESYSTEM,(BureauofPosts)andEMPLOYEES'COMPENSATION
COMMISSION,respondents.

SeverinoB.Estoninaforpetitioner.

TheGovernmentCorporateCounselforGSIS.

PARAS,J.:

The only issue in this case is whether or not the death of petitioner's husband, Filomeno Vano is compensable
undertheEmployees'CompensationLaw.

Filomeno Vano was a letter carrier of the Bureau of Posts in Tagbilaran City. On July 31, 1983, a Sunday, at
around3:30p.m.Vanowasdrivinghismotorcyclewithhissonasbackriderallegedlyonhiswaytohisstationin
Tagbilaranforhisworkthefollowingday,Monday.AstheywereapproachingHinawananBadgeinLoay,Bohol,
themotorcycleskidded,causingitspassengerstobethrownoverboard.Vano'sheadhitthebridge'srailingwhich
renderedhimunconscious.HewastakentotheEngelwoodHospitalwherehewasdeclareddeadonarrivaldue
toseverehemorrhage.

Vano's widow, Crispina Vano, filed a death benefit claim under PD 626, as amended, with the Government
ServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS).OnApril6,1984,theGSISdeniedtheclaim,citingthefollowingreason:

It appears on record that your husband was on his way to his station when he died in a vehicular
accidenthefiguredinaSunday,July31,1983.

Obviously, the accident occurred outside of his time and place of work neither was he performing
official duties at the time of its occurrence. Accordingly, the conditions for compensability in
accordancewiththelawhavenotbeensatisfied,towit:

1.thattheemployeemusthavebeeninjuredattheplacewherehisworkrequireshimto
be

2.thattheemployeemusthavebeenperforminghisofficialfunctionsand

3.iftheinjuryissustainedelsewhere,theemployeemusthavebeenexecutinganorder
forhisemployer.(p.22,Rollo)

Crispina Vano's requests for reconsideration were denied by the GSIS, consequently, the case was elevated to
theEmployees'CompensationCommission(ECC)forappropriatereviewunderECCCaseNo.2658.

InaDecisiondatedOctober13,1987,theECCaffirmedthedecisiondenyingtheclaimofCrispinaVanobecause:

Under the Employees' Compensation law, injuries resulting from accidents while an employee is
goingtoandfromtheplaceofworkisnotcompensable.Someexceptions,however,are:whenthe
injury is sustained at a place proximate to the workplace, when the employee meets the accident
whileridinginacompanyvehicleandwhenheisonspecialerrandforhisemployer.(Section1,Rule
IIIoftheAmendedRulesofEmployees'Compensation)
 Wenotethatthecaseatbardoesnotfallunderanyoftheforegoingexceptions.Infact,thesubject
employee's accident happened on a Sunday, a nonworking day. In the light of the foregoing, we
cannotbutaffirmrespondent'sdenialoftheclaim.(pp.1315,Rollop.2,Decision,ECCCaseNo.
2658)

ThepetitionerthencametothisCourtonapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Sheallegesthatsinceherhusband
waspreciselycommutingfromhishometowntoTagbilaranCity,wherehewouldreportfordutyaslettercarrier
thefollowingday,whenhemettheaccident,thenhisconsequentdeathshouldbecompensated.

TherespondentGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS)reiteratesitsviewsandcontendsthatthepresent
provisionoflawonemploymentinjuryisdifferentfromthatprovidedintheoldWorkmen'sCompensationActand
is "categorical in that the injury must have been sustained at work while at the workplace or elsewhere while
executinganorderfromtheemployer."(Rollo,p.69)

For its part, the respondent Employees' Compensation Commission stood firm in asserting that the death of
FilomenoVanoisnottheresultofanemploymentaccidentascontemplatedbylawhencepetitionerisclearlynot
entitledtoherclaimfordeathbenefits.

The case of Vda. de Torbela vs. Employees' Compensation Commission (96 SCRA 260, 263, 264) supports
petitioner'scontentionofcompensability.Inthesaidcase,thisCourtheld:

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

Theclaimiscompensable.Whenanemployeeisaccidentallyinjuredatapointreasonablyproximate
totheplaceofwork,whileheisgoingtoandfromhiswork,suchinjuryisdeemedtohavearisenout
ofandinthecourseofhisemployment.

ThesamerulingwasreiteratedinthemorerecentcaseofAlanovs.Employees'CompensationCommission(158
SCRA,669,672):

Inthiscase,itisnotdisputedthatthedeceaseddiedwhilegoingtoherplaceofwork.Shewasatthe
placewhere,asthepetitionerputsit,herjobnecessarilyrequiredhertobeifshewastoreachher
placeofworkontime.Therewasnothingprivateorpersonalabouttheschoolprincipal'sbeingatthe
placeoftheaccident.Shewastherebecauseheremploymentrequiredhertobethere.

We see no reason to deviate from the foregoing rulings. Like the deceased in these two (2) aforementioned
cases,itwasestablishedthatpetitioner'shusbandthecaseatbarwasonhiswaytohisplaceofworkwhenhe
mettheaccident.Hisdeath,therefore,iscompensableunderthelawasanemploymentaccident.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebySETASIDEandtheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem
isorderedtopaypetitionerthesumofTwelveThousandPesos(P12,000.00))asdeathbenefitandthesumof
OneThousandTwoHundredPesos(P1,200.00)asattorney'sfees.

SOORDERED.

Padilla,SarmientoandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

MelencioHerrera,J.,isonleave.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation