JUANITA NITURA, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (PHILIPPINE ARMY), RESPONDENTS.

Nitura versus Employees' Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Juanita Nitura against the Employees' Compensation Commission and the Government Service Insurance System, acting for the Philippine Army. The petitioner is the mother of a soldier who died from a fall off a hanging wooden bridge while returning to camp after being ordered by his superior to check on personnel attending a dance party. She seeks death compensation benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, which both the System and the Commission denied. The case matters because it fixes the test for compensability of a soldier's death: the workplace is not a fixed desk, and a soldier on active duty is presumed to be on official duty around the clock unless he has clearly gone on approved vacation leave.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a death claim for compensation benefits with the Government Service Insurance System. The claim was denied on the ground that the injury and resulting death did not result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Her request for reconsideration was likewise denied, the System saying her son was not at his place of work nor performing his official function when the accident occurred.

The claim was then elevated to the Employees' Compensation Commission for review. The Commission affirmed the denial, reasoning that the deceased was coming from a dance party, that recreation is not connected to official function, and that even assuming a work connection, he acted with notorious negligence in crossing the bridge while intoxicated. From that Commission decision, the petitioner came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Private First Class Regino Nitura began his military service in October 1978, when he was called for military training in the Philippine Army. At the time of his death in March 1986, he was assigned to a company of an infantry battalion stationed at Basagan, Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte.

In the evening of March 2, 1986, he was instructed to go to Barangay San Jose, Dipolog City, about one kilometer from his company command post, to check on several personnel of the command then attending a dance party. His battalion commander attested to this instruction in an affidavit. On his way back to camp, he passed, crossed, and fell from a hanging wooden bridge connecting the two barangays, his head hitting the stony ground. The death certificate states that he died of cardio-respiratory arrest, shock, traumatic due to hemorrhage, intracranial due to severe concussion of the brain due to accidental fall.

A Line of Duty Board of Officers convened and found that he was performing official duties with his unit. General Orders later declared his death in line of duty, and the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs ordered payment of death gratuity to his rightful heirs.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of Private First Class Regino Nitura is compensable under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, considering that the accident occurred while he was returning from a dance party.
• Whether or not his intoxication and alleged notorious negligence bar the claim for compensation benefits.

Applicable Provisions

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

Section 1. Grounds — (a) 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 been injured at the place where his work require him to be; (2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and (3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must be executing an order of the employer.

This is the very provision the Commission invoked to deny the claim, and the Court construes it liberally so that a soldier's station and his superior's order satisfy its conditions.

Section 1, Rule IV of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation provides:

Section 1. Limitation — No compensation shall be allowed to the employee or his dependents when the injury, sickness, disability or death was occasioned by any of the following: (1) his intoxication; (2) his willful intention to injure or kill himself or another; or (3) his notorious negligence.

This is the defense raised by the respondents, which the Court rejects for want of proof that intoxication or notorious negligence was the proximate cause of death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the death is compensable. The Employees' Compensation Act is basically a social legislation designed to afford relief to working men and women, and the Commission, as an official agent of social justice, should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection. The concept of a workplace cannot be literally applied to a soldier in active duty status, as if he were a machine operator or a clerk in a fixed office, for a soldier must go where his company is stationed. His presence at the site of the accident was with the permission of his superior officer, who directed him to go to Barangay San Jose, and in carrying out that directive he had to pass the hanging bridge. A place where soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at cannot be very different, legally speaking, from a place where they are required to go by their commanding officer.

On official function, the Court held that a soldier on active duty status is on a twenty-four hour a day official duty status, subject to military discipline and to the orders of his superior officers at all times, except when on vacation leave. A soldier is presumed to be on official duty unless he is shown to have clearly and unequivocally put aside that status by going on an approved vacation leave. The deceased was neither on vacation leave nor on overnight pass; he was directed by his superior to check on the personnel at the dance party. The Court also gave weight to the military's own finding that his death was in line of duty.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that neither intoxication nor notorious negligence was established. One who raises drunkenness as a defense must show that the person was extremely drunk, that the intoxication was the proximate cause of death or injury, and the burden of proof lies on him who raises the defense. The respondents did not establish that the state of drunkenness was the proximate cause of death. Notorious negligence means something more than mere or simple negligence; it signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety. Disobedience to rules does not in itself constitute notorious negligence if no intention can be attributed to the injured to end his life, and no such intention was shown.

Doctrine

First, the Employees' Compensation Act is social legislation, and all doubts in its implementation and interpretation are resolved in favor of labor; the Commission must adopt a liberal attitude where the facts allow an inference of work connection. Second, the workplace of a soldier on active duty is not a fixed place: a place where he has lawful permission to be, by order of his superior, is legally no different from a place where he is required to go. Third, a soldier on active duty is presumed to be on official duty twenty-four hours a day unless shown to have clearly and unequivocally gone on approved vacation leave. Fourth, intoxication defeats compensation only if shown to be the proximate cause of death, and the burden lies on him who raises it. Fifth, notorious negligence requires a deliberate disregard of personal safety, not mere disobedience of rules.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the Commission's decision was reversed and set aside, and the petitioner and the deceased's illegitimate minor children, Regina and Rogian, were awarded full benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a soldier on active duty is presumed to be on official duty twenty-four hours a day unless clearly shown to be on approved vacation leave. Examiners use this case to test the liberal interpretation of the Employees' Compensation Act and the strict proof required before intoxication or notorious negligence can bar a claim.