VDA. DE SANTIAGO v.

REYES occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or
G.R. No. L-13115 / FEB 29, 1960 / LABRADOR, J. / ADMIN-EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW-THE death of himself or of another.'
LAW-FACT DISTINCTION / RPNICOLAS  Travellers Insurance Company vs. Cardillo: `The evidence necessary to overcome the
NATURE: Petition for Certiorari presumption then must do more than create doubt or set up non-compensable alternative
PETITIONERS: Trinidad de los Reyes Vda. De Santiago explanations of the accident. It must be `evidence such as a reasonable mind must accept
RESPONDENTS: Angela S. Reyes and Workmen’s Compensation Commission as adequate to support a conclusion.

SUMMARY. Victorio Santiago was murdered while driving an autocalesa belonging to

ISSUES & RATIO.
respondent. The heirs are requesting for compensation but were denied by the Workmen’s
1. WON respondent erred in denying petitioner’s claim. –YES
Compensation Commission.
Batangas Transportation case: `It is not unfair; the employer has the means and the
facilities to know the cause; and should not be allowed to profit by concealing it. Nay, he
DOCTRINE. There being a presumption under the provisions of Section 43 of the
should take active steps to ascertain the cause of the murder; not just continue its
Workmen's Compensation Act that the deceased died while in the course of his
operations unmolested.'
employment, his death must be presumed to have arisen out of said employment.
Travellers Insurance Co.: `The death of the employee usually deprives the dependent of
Consequently, his heirs are entitled to receive the compensation provided for by law.
his best witness - the employee himself - and, especially where the accident is
unwitnessed, some latitude should be given the claimant.
FACTS. Hence, presumptions or inference that an unwitnessed death arose out of the employment
 Victorio Santiago was a driver of an autocalesa belonging to respondent and was last seen are allowed in some jurisdictions, where the employer provides no contrary proof, and
operating said autocalesa at 9:00 in the evening of September 26, 1955. when last seen deceased was working or had properly recessed.
 In the morning of September 27, 1955, his dead body was found in Tayabas, Quezon The respondent employer has not provided any contrary proof, and Santiago when he was
obviously a victim of murder by persons who were at large and whose identities were not last seen doing his regular work of driving . .
known. There is no question that immediately before leaving Manila the deceased was engaged in
 There was a specific instruction given by the respondent to the deceased to follow the his employment. The presumption is that he performed his duties legally and in
route prescribed by the Public Service Commission. In the case of jeep driven by the accordance with the rules and regulations, because that was his regular obligation.
deceased, its route is within Manila and suburbs; Inasmuch as the law established the presumption that the deceased followed the law and
 In case the driver goes beyond the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission, a regulations, it was incumbent upon respondent to prove that he did otherwise, or that he
fine of P50.00 is imposed which is paid by the respondent. However, in case of the traffic failed to comply with the regulations. In other words it was incumbent upon the
violations especially speeding, it is the driver who pays. respondent herein to prove that the deceased voluntarily went out of his route and drove
 The Commission found on the question as to whether or not the death of Victoriano his jeepney towards the province of Quezon, not that the deceased voluntarily went to
Santiago arose out of and was occasioned in the court of his employment that the drivers that province thereby going beyond the route provided for the vehicle that he was driving.
act in deviating from the route prescribed for his observance constituted a positive factor Petitioners claim that the deceased voluntarily went out of his ordinary route. Petitioners
in bringing about his own demise. It found that the deceased willfully violated public also have the obligation to prove this fact, this being an affirmative allegation. They
service rules and regulations and the instructions of his employer in undertaking a trip too failed to do so.
far beyond the limits of the line in which his jeepney was authorized to operate.
 Associate Commissioner Nieves Baens del Rosario dissented from the opinion of the DECISION.
majority: In connection with the “arising out of and in the course of employment” Decision by the lower court is Set Aside and ordered to pay compensation
requirement in relation to the presumptions in favor of the employee, Larson makes this
comment – “The burden of proving his cases beyond speculation and conjecture is on the
claimant. He is aided in some jurisdiction by presumptions that help to supply the
minimum evidence necessary to support an award, and which shift the burden to the
defendant when some connection of the injury with the work has been prove.”
 And in this jurisdiction where such presumptions in favor of the employee are provided
in our Workmen's Compensation Act, the Supreme Court in the Batangas Transportation
case ruled: Our position is that once it is proved that the employee died in the course of
the employment, the legal presumption in the contrary, is that the claim comes within the
provisions of the compensation law. In other words, that accident arose out of the
workmen's employment.
 Another presumption created in favor of the employee and which is more specific than
the all embracing presumption that the claim comes within the provisions of `the Act' is
that one provided in sub-section 3 of Section 44. It reads: `3. That the injury was not