GENEROSO ALANO, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Alano versus Employees' Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Generoso Alano, in behalf of the children of the deceased Dedicacion de Vera, against the Employees' Compensation Commission. The question is whether the death of a school principal, struck and killed by a speeding mini-bus at a plaza where she waited for a ride to school, is compensable as an employment accident. The case matters because it draws the boundary of compensability under the present Employees' Compensation law and its rules, and it settles that an injury suffered while going to work, at a point reasonably proximate to the workplace, may be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

Procedural History

Generoso Alano filed a claim for income benefit with the Government Service Insurance System, for and in behalf of the decedent's children. The System denied the claim on the ground that the injury was not an employment accident satisfying all the conditions prescribed by law. Alano sought reconsideration, which was denied, and the records were elevated to the Employees' Compensation Commission for review. The Commission affirmed the denial, holding that the accident met none of the conditions in the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation. Alano then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari, alleging that the death arose out of or in the course of employment. The Government Service Insurance System manifested that it did not appear to be a party because it had not been impleaded.

Facts

Dedicacion de Vera was a government employee and served as principal of Salinap Community School in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. Her tour of duty ran from seven thirty in the morning to five thirty in the afternoon.

On November 29, 1976, at about seven o'clock in the morning, while she was waiting for a ride at Plaza Jaycee in San Carlos City on her way to the school, she was bumped and run over by a speeding Toyota mini-bus. She died instantly. She was survived by four sons and a daughter.

On June 27, 1977, her brother Generoso Alano filed the claim for income benefit with the Government Service Insurance System. The System denied it, and the Employees' Compensation Commission affirmed, reasoning that the accident happened thirty minutes before working hours, not at the workplace but at the plaza where she usually waited for a ride, and while she was not performing official functions nor on a special errand for the school.

Issues

• Whether or not the injury sustained by Dedicacion de Vera, resulting in her death, is compensable as an employment accident under the law.
• Whether or not the failure to implead the Government Service Insurance System as a party respondent is fatal to the claim.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1(a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation provides:

For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of an employment accident satisfying all the following conditions: (1) The employee must have sustained the injury during his working hours; (2) The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be; and (3) The employee must have been performing his official functions.

This is the very rule the Commission applied in denying the claim, and the Court measures the facts against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It found the case governed by its earlier ruling in the case of Vda. de Torbela versus Employees' Compensation Commission, which had a similar factual background:

When an employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably proximate to the place at work, while he is going to and from his work, such injury is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment.

The Court stressed that it was not disputed that the deceased died while going to her place of work. She was at the place where her job necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. There was nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the place of the accident; she was there because her employment required her to be there.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was not fatal that the Government Service Insurance System was not impleaded as a party respondent. As ruled from the case of La O versus Employees' Compensation Commission up to Cabanero versus Employees' Compensation Commission and recently Clemente versus Government Service Insurance System, the System is a proper party in employees' compensation cases as the ultimate implementing agency of the Commission. The Court noted that the law and the rules refer to the System in all aspects of employee compensation, including enforcement of decisions.

Doctrine

An employee who is accidentally injured at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while going to and from work, is deemed to have suffered the injury out of and in the course of employment, and the injury is compensable. The conditions in Section 1(a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation are satisfied when the employee is at the place where the job necessarily requires her to be in order to reach her workplace on time, even if the accident occurs shortly before working hours and away from the school itself. The Government Service Insurance System is a proper party in employees' compensation cases as the ultimate implementing agency of the Employees' Compensation Commission, and its non-impleadment does not defeat the claim.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission and ordered the Government Service Insurance System to pay the heirs of the deceased twelve thousand pesos as death benefit and one thousand two hundred pesos as attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an injury at a point reasonably proximate to the workplace, while going to or from work, is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Examiners use this case to test the going to work rule under the present Employees' Compensation law, and to test whether the Government Service Insurance System must be impleaded.