PHILIPPINE ENGINEER’S SYNDICATE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FLORA S. MARTIN AND WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
awarding compensation or death benefits to claimant Flora S. Martin.

The facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

“Aurelio Martin, the deceased husband of the claimant was employed by the
respondent as a hatching plant operator at the Biñga-Hydro Electric Project, at
Tublay, Benguet, Mt. Province, on or about November, 1957, with an average
weekly wage of P56.00. On December 2, 1957, at around 6:10 o’clock in the
afternoon, the decedent, after coming from his work, was standing together with
some other workers of the respondent at a certain point by the roadside near
their place of work, waiting for the truck of the company that would convey them
home. As the truck they were waiting for was approaching, the group signaled the
driver to stop, but the latter did not heed their sign and continued on his way.
As the service truck passed by, the decedent, with some others from the group
ran after the truck, and upon overtaking it, attempted to ride on its platform.
The decedent was able to cling at something at the right side of the truck and
tried to leap into the platform, but in doing so, he slipped and fell to the
ground and was ran over by the right rear wheel of the truck, causing his death.
He was survived by his wife, the claimant herein and 2 minor children who were
totally dependent upon him for support. Burial expenses in the amount of P200.00
were paid by the respondent’s insurance carrier. The respondent controverted the
claim on time.”

Petitioner maintains: (1) that the injuries sustained in the accident,
causing Martin’s death, did not arise out of or in the course of his employment;
and (2) that said injuries were due to his notorious negligence.

It appears, however, that the truck involved in the accident was a service
truck of petitioner, furnished by the latter to convey its employees or workers
back home from work. It is clear, therefore, that the accident arose out of or
in the course of employment.

“* * * Off-promise injuries to or from work, in both liberal and narrow
states, are compensable (1) if the employee is on the way to or from work in a
vehicle owned or supplied by the employer, whether in a public (e.g., the
employer’s street car) or private conveyance. * * *.” (Workmen’s Compensation
Laws by Horovitz, p. 162.)

Petitioner’s allegation of notorious negligence on the part of Martin is
predicated upon the fact that the service truck was in motion when he boarded
it; but this fact, alone, is insufficient to justify the conclusion that he had
been notoriously negligent. It does not appear that the truck was running at a
great speed. On the contrary, the record shows that it was going up grade, thus
suggesting that it must have been running slowly. Neither do the records show
the conditions of the road or any other circumstance that may indicate clearly
that the aforementioned laborers could not possibly or probably achieve their
purpose. In fact, several men succeeded in boarding the truck in motion. Again,
even if there had been some negligence on the part of the deceased, such
negligence was not notorious in nature.

“Negligence to be a successful defense in a compensation case, must be more
than simple or contributory. (Irineo Banaag vs. Virginia Tanghuping, et al., G.
R. No. L-7209, December 2, 1953.)”

* * * * * * *

“Notorious negligence is something more than simple or contributory
negligence. As a result, failure to avoid a known danger by a laborer engrossed
in his work who momentarily forgets it is not negligence. Also, failure to
exercise incessant vigilance in avoiding a known danger is not negligence. The
reason for such holdings is the very obvious deduction that no man in his senses
would deliberately court death. (Flores vs. Mindanao Lumber Co., G. R. No.
43096, dated May 28, 1935.)”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioner, Philippine Engineer’s Syndicate, Inc. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.