LEONORA VDA. DE CABARUBIAS, FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER FOUR MINOR CHILDREN, MAXIMINO JR., MARIPAS, MARISSA AND MARITES, ALL SURNAMED CABARUBIAS, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S …

Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case No. 163164, dated
February 13, 1976, reversing that of the Department of Labor, Regional Office
No. 4, Manila, dated October 23, 1975, ordering the Top Service, Inc., a company
duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philip­pines, to pay the
claimant Leonora Cabarubias P6,000.00 as death
compensation benefits and P300.00 for attorney’s fees, as well as to pay the
said regional office P61.00 as administrative expenses (Annex “A” of
Petition).

This COURT, by resolution of May 5, 1976, gave due course to the petition, treated it
as a special civil action and required the parties to submit simultaneous
memoranda.

On February 12, 1975, Leonora Vda. de
Cabarubias, the surviving spouse of the late Maximino Cabarubias, in her own
behalf and in behalf of their minor children, Maximino
Jr., Maripas, Marissa and Marites,
all surnamed Cabarubias, filed a claim for
compensation against the Top Service, Inc. with the Department of Labor,
Regional Office No. 4, Manila.

On October 23, 1975, the hearing officer of the said regional
office rendered a decision, finding that “the late Maximino
Cabarubias in the course of his employment as pump
operator of respondent and assigned in the night shift from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m., met a vehicular accident on December 23, 1974 while performing his duty
in going to (the) pump station.  He was
immediately brought to (the) Rizal
Memorial Hospital
where he expired on January 3, 1975.”
The said regional office concluded that the claimant and her children are
entitled to death benefits, burial expenses and attorney’s fees and,
accordingly, ordered the Top Service, Inc. to pay the same.

In a motion dated November 6, 1975, respondent company prayed for
a reconsideration of the decision of the regional office, on the ground that
the vehicular accident that befell the late Maximino Cabarubias did not arise out of and in the course of his
employment or was not service-connected, to which claimant filed an opposition
dated November 8, 1975.

On February 13, 1976,
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered a decision, the pertinent
portions of which read:

“The pertinent facts of the case disclosed from the record
show that the late Maximino Cabarubias
was in the employ of the respondent company as pump operator in one of its
vessels or barges and was paid an average weekly wage of P51.00 for working six
days a week.  On December 23, 1974, he worked from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00
noon and from 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.  At about 8:30
in the evening of December 23, 1974,
the late Cabarubias while on his way home to Beverly
Hills Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal,
met a vehicular accident at Cir Road,
Antipolo, Rizal, involving
a Baby Bus with Plate No. YA-855 (PUB-Manila-74) and the
motor­cycle driven by him (Cabarubias).  He was rushed to the Rizal Provincial
Hospital, Pasig, Rizal where he succumbed on January 3, 1975, due to intracranial injury.

“It is very obvious that the fatal vehicular accident that
befell (to) Cabarubias was not due to and in
pursuance of his employment.  At the time
he met the said fatal vehicular accident on December 23, 1974; he was not
performing any service or work for the benefit and interest of the respondent
nor doing something in pursuance and in the furtherance of the business of the
respondent (Murillo vs. Mendoza, 66 Phil. 689, etc.), but was on his way home
after his off duty at 5:00 p.m. and had left the premises of his employer which
was very far from the place of accident. 
It is already settled that a workman is not entitled from (sic) personal
injuries resulting from an accident that befell him while going to or returning
from his place of employment, because such an accident does not arise out of
and in the course of his employment (Afable vs.
Singer Sewing Machine Co. 31 OG 2312, 58 Phil. 40; Donato
Quiroz vs. Pampanga Development Co., Inc. L-22117,
April 29, 1966, etc.).

“We cannot also invoke here the proximity doctrine under the
exceptions ‘off premise rule’, because when Maximino Cabarubias met the fatal accident in Antipolo,
Rizal on December 23, 1974 at about 8:30 p.m., he was
on his way home which was 3 1/2 hours after his off duty at 5:00 p.m. from the
premises of his employer and very far from the place of accident (Iloilo Dock
Engineering Co. vs. WCC, L-76341, Nov. 29, 1968, Vol. 26 SCRA pp. 102-120)”
[pp. 10-12, rec.].

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner contends that when the deceased Maximino
Cabarubias met the fatal accident at about 8:30 p.m.
of December 23, 1974, it was during his assigned working hours in the night
shift from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and that the mishap occurred while he was
performing his duty as a pump operator in going to inspect respondent
corporation’s pump station in Antipolo, Rizal, coming from said respondent’s office at the Beverly
Hills Subdivision, also in Antipolo, Rizal.

Respondent Top Service, Inc., upon the other hand, contends that
the injury which resulted in the death of the deceased did not arise out of and
in the course of his employment, for the deceased was injured in a vehicular
accident outside of the premises of respondent company and was not performing
his duty at that time for he was then off-duty for almost four (4) hours,
because as a pump operator, his time schedule on the date and time of the
accident was from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

After a careful review of the records before this COURT, WE
reverse the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

As a pump operator of the respondent company, one of the specific
duties of the deceased was to inspect the respondent’s pump station installed
in the town proper of Antipolo, Rizal.  It was, therefore, imperative that in
inspecting the pump, the deceased had to travel by motorcycle from respondent’s
office in Beverly Hills Subdivision, in Antipolo, Rizal, to the said respondent’s pump station and back.  When the fatal accident occurred on December 23, 1974, at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased, riding in the
company’s motorcycle, was going to Antipolo town
proper to inspect the pump station.  This
is borne by the affidavit of Eduardo Novero dated October 14, 1975, the deceased’s
co-employee working as a driver-operator of respondent company (pp. 13, 14,
rec.) as well as by the affidavit of the wife of the deceased, also dated October 14, 1975 (pp. 15, 16, rec.).

Respondent company insists that when the mishap occurred at about
8:30 p.m., it was already four (4)
hours after the deceased had knocked off from work at 5:00 p.m.  This
insistence could be based on the daily assignment and time record (Annex
“C” of respondent’s comment). 
This annex was submitted by one whose name is not printed and whose
signature is “illegible”.  The
finding of the Department of Labor Regional Office No. 4, Manila, dated October
23, 1975, that on December 23, 1974 the deceased was “assigned in the
night shift from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.” finds support in the affidavit of
Eduardo Novero, who attested that the deceased’s
“tour of duty was from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.”.  This finding is further strengthened by the
affidavit of the deceased’s wife attesting to the same schedule or tour of
duty.  The affidavits of the
driver-operator of respondent company and of the wife of the deceased are
superior to and therefore more credible than an unsworn
daily assignment and time record signed by one who was not presented by the
employer to testify.

There is, therefore, sufficient substantial evidence to prove that
when petitioner’s deceased husband met the fatal accident at about 8:30 p.m. on
December 23, 1974, he was on his way to inspect respondent company’s pump
station in the town proper of Antipolo, Rizal, riding on a motorcycle furnished by the company and
well within the time frame of his schedule of work assignment.  The fatal accident resulting in the death of
petitioner’s husband happened while in the performance of his duties as a pump
operator for the benefit and interest of the respondent corporation, which
death must be held compensable.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND  RESPONDENT TOP SERVICE, INC. IS HEREBY
ORDERED TO PAY:

1.  CLAIMANT LEONORA VDA. DE CABARUBIAS, FOR
HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER FOUR MINOR CHILDREN, NAMELY, MAXIMINO, JR.,
MARIPAS, MARISSA AND MARITES, ALL SURNAMED CABARUBIAS:

A.  THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND
AND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P6,200.00) AS DEATH
COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF BURIAL EXPENSES; AND

B.  SIX HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS
(P620.00) AS ATTORNEY’S FEES;

2. 
THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE PESOS
(P61.00) AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES; AND

3. 
THE COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Martin,
Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Muñoz Palma, J., no part.