Scribd
Upload
62 views2 pages

91 de La Rea Vs ECC

The petitioner claimed compensation benefits for the death of her husband Mauricio de la Rea, who was killed while on vacation leave from his job in the Philippine Navy. The Employees' Compensation Commission and GSIS denied the claim, finding that his death was not work-related. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, as Mauricio was not performing work duties at the time of death and his killing had no established motive. To be compensable, a death must be causally connected to the employee's work, which was not shown in this case.

Uploaded by

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

91 de La Rea Vs ECC

The petitioner claimed compensation benefits for the death of her husband Mauricio de la Rea, who was killed while on vacation leave from his job in the Philippine Navy. The Employees' Compensation Commission and GSIS denied the claim, finding that his death was not work-related. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, as Mauricio was not performing work duties at the time of death and his killing had no established motive. To be compensable, a death must be causally connected to the employee's work, which was not shown in this case.

Uploaded by

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

G.R. No.

L-66129 January 17, 1986

CARMELITA DE LA REA, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT


SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents.

FACTS:

The late Mauricio de la Rea enlisted in the Philippine Navy on October 3, 1972 and re-enlisted every three years
thereafter. Imediately before his death, he was assigned in the Philippine Navy's Assault Craft Squadron, National
Defense Forces in Sangley Point, Cavite City. For the purpose of undergoing physical examination relative to his re-
enlistment in the Philippine Navy, he was granted his rest and recreation order, or what is commonly known as
vacation leave, for fifteen (15) days. While enjoying his rest and recreation privileges at his hometown in Halang,
Amadeo, Cavite, he was shot to death for unknown motive by a certain Pepito Montoya who is also a resident of the
same place. Mauricio de la Rea died instantly from gunshot wounds he sustained.

The Philippine Navy created a Line on Duty (LOD) Board to investigate the death of Mauricio de la Rea and to
determine whether he died in line of duty. The (LOD) Board submitted its report to the Commander, Naval Defense
Forces (CNDF) of the Philippine Navy concluding that the death of the deceased was not due to his misconduct,
neither was he AWOL (absent without official leave) at the time of the incident, and recommending that Mauricio de
la Rea, who died in line of duty be entitled to all the benefits due and to become due him as prescribed by laws and
regulations.

Prior to the aforesaid report, herein petitioner filed a claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree No.
626 with the Government Service Insurance System. This claim was denied on the ground that the sickness/injury
that caused his/her death is not due to circumstances of his/her employment, nor incurred in the performance of the
duties and responsibilities of his/her position.

Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the above letter denial which was likewise denied by the respondent GSIS. On
Appeal to respondent ECC, the denial of petitioner’s claim for benefits was sustained primarily because the death of
Mauricio de la Rea emanated from factors which are not work-connected.

ISSUE:

WON the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation

RULING:

NO.

For the death to be compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, Section 1 (a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on
Employees' Compensation is in point:

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 of the following conditions:
(1) The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be;
(2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and
(3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order for the
employer.

In the case before us, the required conditions are wanting. There is also no submission that the above rules are
unconstitutional or invalid. Mauricio de la Rea was not at the time and place where his work required him to be; neither
was he performing official functions nor was he executing an order for his employer at the time he was slain. In other
words, his death is not work-related.

Mauricio de la Rea was undisputedly on vacation leave in his hometown in Halang, Amadeo, Cavite when after
alighting from a jeepney, he was shot twice by a certain Pepito Montoya with a .45 caliber pistol. The motive behind
the killing was unknown, The records do not even show, much less was evidence presented that the death which
befell the petitioner's husband arose as an incident to the performance of his duties in the Philippine Navy or that the
same arose from the perils of his work. (Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 26
SCRA 102) In the absence of such causal-connection, especially under the present law on employees' compensation,
the claim cannot be granted.

The mere fact that the employee-employer relationship continues during an intermission from work is not controlling
on the question of whether or not an injury incurred during such time is compensable. (Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 76
N.W. 2d 35) What is essential is the causal connection between the resulting death or disability and the employee's
work
Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to establish such a causal connection. No allegations were made as to the reason
why her husband was killed. Investigators who inquired into the circumstances surrounding the death were not able
to identify or determine the motive for the killing. The suddenness of the attack on Mauricio de la Rea and the absence
of motive for such an act clearly belie petitioner's claim for compensation.

We are, therefore, constrained to deny petitioner's claim for death benefits on the ground that the death is not work
connected.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

As held in the case of Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, (27 SCRA 1132:)

... (J)urisprudence is to the effect that injuries sustained by an employee while in the course of his employment,
as the result of an assault upon his person by another employee, or by a third person, no question of the
injured employee's own culpability being involved, is compensable where, from the evidence presented, a
rational mind is able to trace the injury to a cause set in motion by the nature of the employment, or some
condition obligation or incident therein; and not by some other agency.

You might also like