G.R. No. L-14079. October 26, 1960
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (NOW NAWASA), PETITIONER, VS. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE MINORS ROSITA, ROGELIO AND JAIME, ALL SURNAMED NIRZA,…
PADILLA, J.:
Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, to review a decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission dated 8 May 1958, affirming that of its Referee dated 29
September 1956 where the herein petitioner was ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased Felix Nirza, as follows:
1. Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 772, as amended, the widow and the
heirs are entitled to receive sixty per centum (60%) of the weekly wage of the
deceased, or 60% of P40.20 equals P24.12. For 208 weeks, therefore, they should
be paid the amount of P5,016.96. But the law only provides that the compensation
to be awarded shall not exceed P4,000.00, plus burial expenses of not exceeding
P200.00, which the respondent should also pay the widow.2. The respondent is also ordered to pay to the Commission Fund the amount of
P41.00, as fee for this decision or P1.00 plus P1.00 for every hundred pesos
awarded as compensation. (Annex C).
and to pay to the Commission the sum of P5 (WCC Case No. 534, Annex E), and a
resolution of the Commission en banc, dated 25 June 1958, denying the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex G).
The evidence is summarized by the Commission as follows:
About week before July 12, 1952, (Saturday) a group of workers, of the
Metropolitan Water District, MWD for short, was undertaking the construction of
a certain sewer project located at the corner of Carriedo and Rizal Avenue
Streets, Manila. In this group of workers under Foreman Eduardo Ramos was
included the deceased, Felix Nirza. It is not denied that these laborers all
belonged to the MWD Worker’s Union. Leoncio Pascua, the then Chief of the
Construction Division, MWD, instructed another group of laborers under foreman
Celestino Lingad to take over the job from the first group, allegedly because
the management wanted to have the project finished before midnight of that day
(July 12). However, there is no showing as to how the same number of workers
could insure the completion of the work earlier than if it were continued by the
first group.It appears that Nirza and his co-workers objected to the turnover of the job
and thereby ensued a heated discussion between Lingad, head of the MWD
Brotherhood Association, and Nirza who was generally looked upon by his
companions as one of the leaders of the MWD Worker’s Union. It also appears that
the discussion ended with the first group of laborers relinquishing the job to
the second group, although there was some delay in the actual turn-over
thereof.The next working day, Nirza and his group reported to the MWD compound for
assignment, they were verbally informed that the management had suspended them.
Nirza and his companion then tried to verify this information from Mr. Pascua
but they failed to contact him.In their desire to know something about their status as workers of the firm,
Felix Nirza and his “suspended” companions next tried to see Perlas, Assistant
Manager of the MWD, who was allegedly the chairman of the investigating
committee. The “suspended” workers appear to have been given no categorical
answer in respect to their queries so they had to go to the MWD compound
everyday to know their fate.On August 31, 1952, Nirza and a companion, named Allanague, also “suspended”
had a serious altercation with one Alipio Morales, driver of Leoncio Pascua and
a member of the MWD Brotherhood Association. The altercation resulted in a fight
but the protagonists were pacified by MWD officials. On September 3, 1952, Nirza
together with Allanague were again at the MWD compound and at about noon, they
were seen being chased by Alipio Morales, then armed with a pistol. Nirza was
shot fatally by Morales while the former was running away.
The petitioner argues that at the time of his death, the deceased was under
suspension and could not have been in the actual performance of his work. Hence
the personal injury he suffered, as a result of which he died, did not arise out
of and in the course of his employment. Consequently, his heirs are not entitled
to death benefits. In rejecting the petitioner’s argument, the Commission reason
out that-
* * * In the first place, it has been shown that the suspension of Nirza was
declared void and of no effect by the Court of Industrial Relations in its order
dated August 17, 1953 on the ground that said suspension was without the benefit
of investigation or hearing at which the worker should have been accorded
opportunity to present his side of the case. In the proceedings for the
collection of Nirza’s unpaid wages before the Court of Industrial Relations, the
respondent herein agreed to a stipulation of facts, paragraph 3 of which reads,
thus:“3. That when Felix Nirza died on September 3, 1952, he was not laboring
under valid suspension or under valid dismissal, as the Order of suspension of
the petitioners by the respondent, Manuel Manosa alone, without due
investigation, effective July 14, 1952, was nullified and superseded by
the order of dismissal of the same petitioners by the MWD Board effective also
July 14, 1952, and both these suspension and dismissal of petitioners were not
sustained by this Honorable Court in its Order of August 17,
1953“As a matter of fact the MWD paid to the heirs of Felix Nirza an amount
corresponding to the decedent’s wages from July 14, 1952 (date of alleged
suspension) to September 3, 1952 (date of death), pursuant to the Order of the
Court of Industrial Eelations on July 24, 1954. It has been judicially
established therefore, that the late Felix Nirza’s employment with respondent
MWD terminated only upon his death. To our mind Felix Nirza had undisputed right
to go to the offices and premises of the MWD to make inquiry as to his status as
a worker of the firm.The respondent also argues that Nirza’s death did not arise out of the
employment inasmuch as at that time, he was not actually performing his work in
the MWD. This too cannot be sustained as under the workmen’s compensation law it
is enough that a worker is injured while engaged in something incidental to his
employment and such injury will be looked upon as having causal relation to that
employment.It is hard to see why the worker’s death in this case should not be held
occupational in origin since it is proven that the quarrel between the deceased
and his attacker is directly traceable to the dispute arising from the turn-over
of the work mentioned elsewhere in this decision.* * * * * * *
The respondent’s contention that the deceased Nirza was the aggressor is
totally belied by the findings of the Court of First Instance which tried and
convicted Alipio Morales for homicide. The Court’s decision has been cited in
the decision under review.
This Court has held on several occasions that findings of fact by the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission will not be disturbed on appeal except when
the decision appealed from is not supported by substantial evidence.[1] We find no reason for disturbing the
findings of the Commission. Nonetheless, from a perusal of the annexes attached
to the record of the case the following points appear: that after the incident
that took place on 12 July 1952 at the corner of Carriedo street and Rizal
Avenue, Manila, where the deceased and his co-workers objected to the turn-over
of ths job they were working on to the group of workers headed by one Lingad,
head of the MWD Brotherhood Association, a rival organization of the MWD
Workers’ Union to which the deceased and his co-workers belonged, the general
manager of the petitioner formed a special investigating committee headed by the
assistant general manager to investigate the incident; that after investigation,
the committee recommended that Felix Nirza, Ri-cardo Allanague, Bernardo Duray,
Restituto Odono. and Andres Lorenzo be suspended for two months without pay and
that the first three mentioned employees be fined an amount equivalent to two
months’ pay, one month pay and one-half month’s pay, respectively; that the
general manager transmitted the report and recommendations of the committee to
the Board of Directors of the respondent with the comment that the employees
involved “should deserve a more stiff punishment than what was recommended ;”
that on 4 September 1952 the board of directors dismissed the five mentioned
employees effective 14 July 1952 (Annex 2, respondents’ answer). At about noon
of 3 September 1952 the deceased was shot and killed by Alipio Morales, a member
of the MWD Brotherhood Association, a rival organization of the MWD Workers’
Union to which the deceased belonged, inside the petitioner’s compound, one day
before the board of directors actually ordered his dismissal from the service.
Therefore, at the time of his death, his suspension or dismissal was not yet
final and he was duty bound to render service to his employer or be within its
compound.
The decision under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Decision affirmed.
[1]Union of Philippine Education
Employees (NLU) vs. Philippine Education Co., 91 Phil., 93; 48 Off.
Gaz., 5278; Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. Consunto, 108 Phil., 62;
International Oil Factory vs. Martinez, supra, 554. See also section
46, Act No. 3428, as amended; section 2, Rule 44.