Scribd
Upload
51 views2 pages

Generoso Alano vs. Ecc 2

The claim is compensable. When an employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while going to and from work, such injury arises out of and in the course of employment. In this case, the deceased died while going to her workplace. She was at the place where her job required her to be to get to work on time. Her accident was not private or personal, but occurred because her employment required her to be there.

Uploaded by

KIERSTINE MARIE BARCELO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views2 pages

Generoso Alano vs. Ecc 2

The claim is compensable. When an employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while going to and from work, such injury arises out of and in the course of employment. In this case, the deceased died while going to her workplace. She was at the place where her job required her to be to get to work on time. Her accident was not private or personal, but occurred because her employment required her to be there.

Uploaded by

KIERSTINE MARIE BARCELO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GENEROSO ALANO,petitioner,vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION,respondent.

FACTS:

Dedicacion de Vera, a government employee during her lifetime, worked as principal of Salinap
Community School in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. Her tour of duty was from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. On
November 29, 1976, at 7:00 A.M., while she was waiting for a ride at Plaza Jaycee in San Carlos City on
her way to the school, she was bumped and run over by a speeding Toyota mini-bus which resulted in
her instantaneous death. She is survived by her four sons and a daughter. Generoso C. Alano, brother of
the deceased, filed the instant claim for income benefit with the GSIS for and in behalf of the decedent's
children. The claim was, however, denied on the same date on the ground that the "injury upon which
compensation is being claimed is not an employment accident satisfying all the conditions prescribed by
law." Appellant requested for a reconsideration of the system's decision, but the same was denied and
the records of the case were elevated to this Commission for review. The respondent Commission
affirmed the decision of the GSIS. It stated that Section I (a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on
Employees' Compensation specifically provides that: "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 sustained the injury during his working hours; (2) The employee
must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be; and (3) The employee must
have been performing his official functions. According to the respondent Commission, the deceased's
accident did not meet any of the aforementioned conditions. First, the accident occured at about 7:00
a.m. or thirty minutes before the deceased's working hours. Second, it happened not at her workplace
but at the plaza where she usually waits for a ride to her work. Third, she was not then performing her
official functions as school principal nor was she on a special errand for the school.

ISSUE: Whether or not the injury sustained by the deceased Dedicacion de Vera resulting in her death is
compensable under the law as an employment accident

HELD:.
The claim is compensable. When an employee is accidentally injured at a point reasonably
proximate to the place at work, while he is going to and from his work, such injury is deemed to have
arisen out of and in the course of his employment

In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased died while going to her place of work. She was at the
place where, as the petitioner puts it, her job necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place
of work on time. There was nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the place of
the accident. She was there because her employment required her to be there.

NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING vs ILLESCAS

FACTS:
Esmeraldo C. Illescas entered into a Contract of Employment with petitioner NFD International Manning Agents, Inc.
Under the contract, respondent was employed as Third Officer of M/V Shinrei for a period of nine months. After
respondent passed the pre-employment medical examination, he boarded the vessel and started performing his job.
when respondent had been on board the vessel, the captain and the chief officer ordered respondent to carry 25 fire
hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop, then back to the deck to refit the caps. The next day, while
carrying a heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, respondent felt a sudden snap on his back. He immediately informed
the ship captain about his condition, and he was advised to take pain relievers. As the pain was initially tolerable, he
continued with his work. After a few days, the pain became severe, and respondent had difficulty walking.

Respondent was brought to a clinic in Japan and was diagnosed to be suffering from lumbago and sprain. The doctor
advised Illescas avoid lifting heavy objects and get further examination and treatment if the symptoms persisted
Despite the lighter work assigned to respondent, he continued to experience excruciating pain, until a doctor declared
that respondent was unfit to work, and recommended that respondent return home for further management.

petitioners received a letter from Illescas’ counsel, demanding the payment of disability benefit.

ISSUE: WhetherIllescas can claim payment for benefit due to accident

RULING:
Where the injury resulted from the performance ofa duty, like carrying heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, it cannot
be said tobe the result of an accident, that is, an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, orfortuitous event—it is common
knowledge that carrying heavy objects cancause back injury.—The Court holds that the snap on the back of
respondentwas not an accident, but an injury sustained by respondent from carrying theheavy basketful of fire
hydrant caps, which injury resulted in his disability.The injury cannot be said to be the result of an accident, that is, an
unlookedfor mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted fromthe performance of a duty.
Although respondent may not have expected theinjury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can
causeback injury, as what happened in this case. Hence, the injury cannot beviewed as unusual under the
circumstances, and is not synonymous with theterm “accident” as defined above

You might also like