REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCISCO AMIL AND WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari for the review of an award of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission (R04-WC Case No. 800) requiring the petitioner,
Republic of the Philippines, to pay P370.85 compensation to Francisco
Amil, injured employee, plus P878.00 due to the National Orthopedic
Hospital for expenses in treating the injury, and P14.00 as costs.

The claim was originally filed with Regional office No. 4 of the
Department of Labor, Manila, where the case was tried and heard. The
regional office found the injury compensable, and made an award in
favor of the claimant. On review, its findings were affirmed, first by
Commissioner De Leon and subsequently by the Commission en banc,
but reducing the original award of the hearing officer by discarding
the amounts charged by the private doctor who treated the claimant at
the same time that he was being treated in the Orthopedic Hospital.

The facts, as found by the Compensation Commission, were as follows:

“Francisco Amil entered the services of the
respondent on June 1, 1955. He worked as a mechanic in the North Harbor
Equipment Depot one of the branch offices of the Bureau of Public
Highways, at the rate of P30.00 a week. The bureau in 1959, thru the
initiative of the Newsette, its official publication, promoted a summer
basketball tournament which was participated in by. the “bonafide
employees of the division or units of the Bureau whose headquarters of
station is in the central office, Manila”. The basketball league was
under the control and supervision of a three-man committee which
prescribed the rules and regulations governing the games. In one of the
games played, particularly in April 16, 1959 between the Equipment
Division and the Auditing Division, Francisco Amil, a member of the
first mentioned basketball quintet, sustained an injury of the left
knee when Ms attempt to shoot the ball in the basket was foiled by one
of the players of the opposing team. The game was played inside the respondent’s premises during office hours.
The following day he was brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital,
where he was given medical treatment, including physical theraphy,
three times a week until he was confined at the same hospital on August
18, 1959. He reported for work for five days after the accident,
performing light duties, but he received his daily wage up to August
17, 1959. Almost. during the same period of his confinement at the
National Orthopedic Hospital — from April 19 to August 15, 1959 — he was also treated by Dr. Agripino Malimban who charged him the amount
of P895.00 for consultations, medicine electro-massage and services. On
August 19, 1959, a day after he entered the hospital, a surgery was
performed for the removal of a torn cartilege upon finding the physical
theraphy that was being applied on the claimant, ineffective. For this
treatment, he incurred P678.00which up to now has not yet been paid by
him. On July 5, 1960, claimant was examined by Dr. Crisini R. Santos
medical rating officer of the Regional Office No. 4, she evaluated his
disability as 15% loss of the use of the left leg. On October 16, 1959,
two days after he was discharged from the hospital, he returned to
work.”

The Commission was of the opinion that the injury was incurred in
the course of a game under the control and supervision of a management
committee, approved by the head of the office, who had issued rules for
the award of the trophies and because the games “boosted the morale and
increased the efficiency” of participating and witnessing employees.
For this reason, it held the injury compensable.

From the decision, the Government appealed, disputing both the compensability of the injury and amount of the award.

The first point of the appellant is that the injury suffered by the
claimant while playing basketball in the premises of the office can not
be considered as an injury that arose out of, and in the course of, the
employment, and that it was an error on the part of the Commission to
so hold.

The Commission found, and it is fairly deducible from the evidence,
that in 1959 the Bureau of Public Highways, where the claimant was
employed, promoted a basketball tournament participated in by bonafide
employees of the Manila units; that the games were managed by a
three-man committee; that the Bureau Commissioner himself approved the
championship game and the rules for the award of the trophies, so that
the official character of the games (in one of which claimant was
injured) appears clear. That the organization of the games was a matter
of policy adopted by the Bureau officials also appears from the
editorial in the January-February, 1959 issue of the Bureau’s official
publications, and from the fact that the games were played during
office hours and in the premises of the Bureau.

This is not a case of an employer possibly permitting the use of
space or equipment by his employees, on their own time and for their
own purposes and amusement, but of an employer actively promoting
competitive games during Working hours, as a matter of policy, thereby
voluntarily increasing the chances of injury to the employees, in order
to improve labor relations, build up good will or common benefit,
lessen friction, and avoid excessive labor turnover. Consequently, the
participation in the games could legitimately be regarded as an
incident in claimant’s employment, and his injury in the course thereof
becomes compensable (Larson, Workmen’s Compensation, section 22.00;
Horowitz, Workmen’s Compensation, 37 Phil. Law Journal (1962), p. 509;
Jewel Tea Co. vs. Industrial Comm. (1955), 128 N. E. 2d, 699, reviewing
cases; Ott v. Ind. Comm. (1948), 82 N.E. 2d, 137 and cases cited,
Thomas vs. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 6 ALE, 1145; Turner vs.
Willard (1956),154 Fed. Supp. 352).

Larsen (Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 1, section 22.30) summarizes the prevailing rule thus:

“x x x to be within the course of employment, the
activity must either take place on the premises at a time closely
related to working hours, or involve some element of compulsion or
concurrent benefit to the employer which marks it a an incident of
employment.”

In the present case, as we have seen, the games were played in the
office premises at 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.; and these we’re working hours on
April 16, 1959, since only the people in the central office (and
claimant was not one of them) who observed the half-day session
(t.s.n., p. 4, Rec, p. 104). The playing hours were set in a circular
(Exhibit G, Rec. p. 96) approved by Commissioner Cuenca (whose
signature appears on the circular), and who was scheduled to award the
trophies (Exhibit C). These circumstances refute the appellant’s charge
that the games were not authorized.

Appellant next questions the award for 15% permanent disability
(based on the examination of Dr. Crisini Santos of the Department of
Labor) on the ground that claimant was discharged from the Orthopedic
Hospital as cured. We see no irreconcilable conflict. The claimant was
deemed cured in the sense of requiring no further hospitalization or
treatment, since the 15% loss of leg activity was permanent and could
not be improved by further medication.

We see no reversible error in the Commission’s decision, and, therefore, the same is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.