Lagazo, Johan Leoric E.
3LM2
G.R. No. L-26341
ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO., petitioner,
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and IRENEA M. PABLO, for herself and in behalf of her
minor children EDWIN, EDGAR and EDNA, all surnamed PABLO, respondents.
Facts:
An appeal by the Iloilo Dock and Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as the IDECO) from the
decision dated February 28, 1966 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission (hereinafter referred to
as the Commission) affirming the decision of the Regional Office VII in Iloilo City, and ordering the IDECO
to pay to the widow and children of Teodoro G. Pablo (Irenea M. Pablo and the minors Edwin, Edgar and
Edna, all surnamed Pablo) the sum of P4,000, to pay to the widow P89 as reimbursement for burial
expenses and P300 as attorney's fees, and to pay to the Commission the amount of P46 as fees pursuant
to section 55 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended.
On January 29, 1960, Pablo, who was employed as a mechanic of the IDECO, while walking on his way
home, was shot to death in front of, and about 20 meters away from, the main IDECO gate, on a private
road commonly called the IDECO road. The slayer, Martin Cordero, was not heard to say anything before
or after the killing. The motive for the crime was and still is unknown as Cordero was himself killed
before he could be tried for Pablo's death. At the time of the killing, Pablo's companion was Rodolfo
Galopez, another employee, who, like Pablo, had finished overtime work at 5:00 p.m. and was going
home. From the main IDECO gate to the spot where Pablo was killed, there were four "carinderias" on
the left side of the road and two "carinderias" and a residential house on the right side. The entire
length of the road is nowhere stated in the record.
Issue:
Whether Pablo's death comes within the meaning and intendment of that "deceptively simple and
litigiously prolific.
Held:
The statute is not intended to relieve completely an employee from the burden of showing that
accidental injuries suffered by him were sustained in the course of his employment. "It is not the law
that mere proof of an accident, without other evidence, creates the presumption under section 21 of
the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Law, c. 67) that the accident arose out of and in the course
of the employment. On the contrary, it has been frequently held, directly and indirectly, that there must
be some evidence from which the conclusion can be drawn that the injuries did arise out of and in the
course of the employment." Proof of the accident will give rise to the statutory presumption only where
some connection appears between the accident and the employment.
But even without the foregoing pronouncement, the employer should still be held liable in view of our
conclusion that that portion of the road where Pablo was killed, because of its proximity, should be
considered part of the IDECO's premises. Hence, the injury was in the course of employment, and there
automatically arises the presumption — invoked in Rivera — that the injury by assault arose out of the
employment, i. e., there is a causal relation between the assault and the employment.
We do say here that the circumstances of time, two minutes after dismissal from overtime work, and
space, twenty meters from the employer's main gate, bring Pablo's death within the scope of the course
factor. But it may logically be asked: Suppose it were three minutes after and thirty meters from, or five
minutes after and fifty meters from, would the "proximity" rule still apply? In answer, we need but
quote that portion of the decision in Jean vs. Chrysler Corporation, supra, which answered a question
arising from an ingenious hypothetical question put forth by the defendant therein: We could, of course,
say "this is not the case before us" and utilize the old saw, "that which is not before us we do not
decide." Instead, we prefer to utilize the considerably older law: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof" (Matthew 1:34), appending, however, this admonition: no statute is static; it must remain
constantly viable to meet new challenges placed to it. Recovery in a proper case should not be
suppressed because of a conjectural posture which may never arise and which if it does, will be decided
in the light of then existing law.
Since the Workmen's Compensation Act is basically a social legislation designed to afford relief to
workmen, it must be liberally construed to attain the purpose for which it was enacted. Liberally
construed, sec. 2 of the Act comprehends Pablo's death. The Commission did not err in granting
compensation.
