February 1979 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1979 > February 1979 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-43854 February 28, 1979 - GLICERIA LASARTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-43854. February 28, 1979.]
GLICERIA LASARTE, for herself and for her children, namely, Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita, and Narciso Jr., all surnamed LASARTE, Petitioners, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Highways), Respondents.
Jaime N. Hernandez, for Petitioners.
Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza and Trial Attorney Raymundo A. Quiroz for Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Narciso Lasarte was killed in a restaurant at Legaspi City while employed as a cashier of the Albay II Engineering District with office in said city. The surviving heirs filed a claim for death benefits against the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways). The Acting Referee granted an award, which the Workmen’s Compensation Commission set aside on the ground that Lasarte’s death was not work-connected.
The Supreme Court held that the deceased having been murdered at the time when he was employed as cashier of the Second Engineering District of Albay, it follows that his death supervened during his employment and therefore the presumption that the claim is compensable exists. The presumption not having been rebutted by any evidence of the respondent, an award is in order.
Questioned decision set aside and petitioners awarded maximum death compensation with burial expenses.
The Supreme Court held that the deceased having been murdered at the time when he was employed as cashier of the Second Engineering District of Albay, it follows that his death supervened during his employment and therefore the presumption that the claim is compensable exists. The presumption not having been rebutted by any evidence of the respondent, an award is in order.
Questioned decision set aside and petitioners awarded maximum death compensation with burial expenses.
SYLLABUS
1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; CLAIM; UNREBUTTED PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY; JUSTIFIES AWARD. — Where it appears that death supervened during employment, such as where the deceased was murdered while employed as a cashier in the Bureau of Public Highways, the claim for death benefits is presumed compensable and an award is in order in the absence of any evidence by the employer to rebut the presumption.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R05-WC Case No. 129982 entitled "Gliceria Lasarte, for herself and for her children namely: Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita, and Narciso Jr., all surnamed Lasarte, Claimants, versus, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), Respondent" reversing the decision of the Acting Referee, Compensation Task Force, in Region Office V, Department of Labor, Legazpi City,, granting death benefits to the petitioners as heirs of Lasarte, who was killed on October 11, 1972 while he was employed as cashier of the Second Engineering District of Albay, Bureau of Public Highways.
The petitioner, Gliceria Lasarte, is the widow Lasarte and the petitioners, Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita and Narciso Jr., all surnamed Lasarte are her children with the deceased Narciso Lasarte. The petitioner filed a claim for death benefits against the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways on account of Narciso Lasarte with Region Office V, Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Section at Legazpi City. After hearing the claim, the Acting Referee of the Compensation Task Force of said Region Office V, Vivencio E. Escarcha, rendered a decision in favor of the claimants dated November 21, 1975, the dispositive part of which reads:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
"WHEREAS, premises considered, judgment is hereby is rendered ordering respondent REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Highways):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. To pay thru this Office and in lump sum claimants the death compensation in the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6.000.00) plus the burial expenses of P200.00, thru the widow claimant, Gliceria Lasarte, the mother of the above-named children;
"2. To pay this Office the fee of SIXTY ONE PESOS (P61.00) pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended.
SO ORDERED.
Legazpi City, Philippines, November 21, 1975.
(SGD.) VIVENCIO E. ESCARCHA
Acting Referee
Compensation Task Force" 1
The respondent, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which reversed the decision of Acting Referee Vivencio E. Escarcha and dismissed the case on the ground that the death of Narciso Lasarte was not connected with his employment as cashier in the Bureau of Public Highways. 2
The facts, as found by the Acting Referee of Region Office V, are that Gliceria Lasarte is the widow of Narciso Lasarte and the other petitioners are the children of said Gliceria Lasarte and Narciso Lasarte; that Narciso Lasarte employed with the Bureau of Public Highways sometime in 1959; that the last position of Narciso Lasarte was Cashier II with a salary of P5,725.20; that he was assigned to the Albay Engineering District with Office at Legazpi City; the morning of October 11, 1972, he went to the office later failed to go home at noon and in the night time; that on the following day, Gliceria Lasarte received a call from their family physician informing her that Narciso Lasarte was dead; that Narciso Lasarte was shot in the Village Restaurant and Hotel at Legazpi City; that Dr. E. Lorenzo, City Health Officer of Legazpi City, found that Narciso Lasarte sustained a gunshot wound on the head which resulted in his death on October 12, 1972; that the incident was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Service, PC, Legazpi City, which reported that Narciso Lasarte died while serving as Cashier II of the respondent; that the circumstances attendant to the killing led the investigators to consider it as murder; that Narciso Lasarte was survived by his wife, Gliceria Lasarte, and his children, namely, Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita and Narciso Jr., and that the late Narciso Lasarte died while in the employ of the respondent, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways) as cashier II. 3
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission said that Narciso Lasarte, as cashier of the II Engineering District of Albay, had his place of work at Ligao, Albay, a good 30 to 40 kilometers away from the place of his death, Village Restaurant and Hotel. This statement is not correct. The office of the II Engineering District of Albay is in Legazpi City near the Office of Narciso Lasarte. It is the III Engineering District of Albay which has its place of work at Ligao, Albay.chanrobles law library : red
The Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippines Constabulary found that Narciso Lasarte was murder time of his death, Narciso Lasarte was cashier of the II Engineering District of Albay. Hence his death supervened during his employment. In view thereof, there is a presumption that his claim is compensable. 4
In Simon v. Republic of the Philippines (Supreme Court), 5 this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . In a very recent case penned by Mr. Justice Claudio Teehankee, this Court held: ‘. . . assuming the employee’s illness may be ruled out as an occupational disease or that the casual link between the nature of his employment and his ailment has been insufficiently shown, nevertheless, it is to be presumed as mandated by Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that the employee’s illness which supervened during his employment either arose out of, or at least aggravated by said employment and with this presumption, the burden of proofs shifts the employer and the employee is relieved of the burden to show causation. In the case before Us, the respondent has failed to discharge that burden. . . .’"
In the present case, the respondent did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption that the death of Narciso Lasarte is compensable.
The Acting Referee of Region Office V at Legazpi City awarded death benefits and burial expenses to the claims based on the following:chanrobles law library
"Under Section 8-(b), claimants are entitled to death compensation in the sum of P6,240.00 (P110.10 reduced to P50.00 x 60% x 208 weeks) which shall be reduced to P6,000.00 plus the burial expense of P200.00." 6
This computation is correct.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside the respondent is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) To pay the claimants, petitioners herein, the sum Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as death compensation plus expenses of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), through the widow-claimant, Gliceria Lasarte; and
2) To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the sum of Sixty One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
The petitioner, Gliceria Lasarte, is the widow Lasarte and the petitioners, Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita and Narciso Jr., all surnamed Lasarte are her children with the deceased Narciso Lasarte. The petitioner filed a claim for death benefits against the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways on account of Narciso Lasarte with Region Office V, Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Section at Legazpi City. After hearing the claim, the Acting Referee of the Compensation Task Force of said Region Office V, Vivencio E. Escarcha, rendered a decision in favor of the claimants dated November 21, 1975, the dispositive part of which reads:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
"WHEREAS, premises considered, judgment is hereby is rendered ordering respondent REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Highways):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. To pay thru this Office and in lump sum claimants the death compensation in the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6.000.00) plus the burial expenses of P200.00, thru the widow claimant, Gliceria Lasarte, the mother of the above-named children;
"2. To pay this Office the fee of SIXTY ONE PESOS (P61.00) pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended.
SO ORDERED.
Legazpi City, Philippines, November 21, 1975.
(SGD.) VIVENCIO E. ESCARCHA
Acting Referee
Compensation Task Force" 1
The respondent, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which reversed the decision of Acting Referee Vivencio E. Escarcha and dismissed the case on the ground that the death of Narciso Lasarte was not connected with his employment as cashier in the Bureau of Public Highways. 2
The facts, as found by the Acting Referee of Region Office V, are that Gliceria Lasarte is the widow of Narciso Lasarte and the other petitioners are the children of said Gliceria Lasarte and Narciso Lasarte; that Narciso Lasarte employed with the Bureau of Public Highways sometime in 1959; that the last position of Narciso Lasarte was Cashier II with a salary of P5,725.20; that he was assigned to the Albay Engineering District with Office at Legazpi City; the morning of October 11, 1972, he went to the office later failed to go home at noon and in the night time; that on the following day, Gliceria Lasarte received a call from their family physician informing her that Narciso Lasarte was dead; that Narciso Lasarte was shot in the Village Restaurant and Hotel at Legazpi City; that Dr. E. Lorenzo, City Health Officer of Legazpi City, found that Narciso Lasarte sustained a gunshot wound on the head which resulted in his death on October 12, 1972; that the incident was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Service, PC, Legazpi City, which reported that Narciso Lasarte died while serving as Cashier II of the respondent; that the circumstances attendant to the killing led the investigators to consider it as murder; that Narciso Lasarte was survived by his wife, Gliceria Lasarte, and his children, namely, Hector, Myriam, Marilyn, Laurence, Maita and Narciso Jr., and that the late Narciso Lasarte died while in the employ of the respondent, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways) as cashier II. 3
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission said that Narciso Lasarte, as cashier of the II Engineering District of Albay, had his place of work at Ligao, Albay, a good 30 to 40 kilometers away from the place of his death, Village Restaurant and Hotel. This statement is not correct. The office of the II Engineering District of Albay is in Legazpi City near the Office of Narciso Lasarte. It is the III Engineering District of Albay which has its place of work at Ligao, Albay.chanrobles law library : red
The Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippines Constabulary found that Narciso Lasarte was murder time of his death, Narciso Lasarte was cashier of the II Engineering District of Albay. Hence his death supervened during his employment. In view thereof, there is a presumption that his claim is compensable. 4
In Simon v. Republic of the Philippines (Supreme Court), 5 this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . In a very recent case penned by Mr. Justice Claudio Teehankee, this Court held: ‘. . . assuming the employee’s illness may be ruled out as an occupational disease or that the casual link between the nature of his employment and his ailment has been insufficiently shown, nevertheless, it is to be presumed as mandated by Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that the employee’s illness which supervened during his employment either arose out of, or at least aggravated by said employment and with this presumption, the burden of proofs shifts the employer and the employee is relieved of the burden to show causation. In the case before Us, the respondent has failed to discharge that burden. . . .’"
In the present case, the respondent did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption that the death of Narciso Lasarte is compensable.
The Acting Referee of Region Office V at Legazpi City awarded death benefits and burial expenses to the claims based on the following:chanrobles law library
"Under Section 8-(b), claimants are entitled to death compensation in the sum of P6,240.00 (P110.10 reduced to P50.00 x 60% x 208 weeks) which shall be reduced to P6,000.00 plus the burial expense of P200.00." 6
This computation is correct.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside the respondent is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) To pay the claimants, petitioners herein, the sum Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as death compensation plus expenses of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), through the widow-claimant, Gliceria Lasarte; and
2) To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the sum of Sixty One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, p. 20.
2. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
3. Rollo, p. 19.
4. Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.
5. 71 SCRA 643, 646.
6. Rollo, p. 20.
February-1979 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. 801-CFI February 2, 1979 - JORGE P. ROYECA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS
G.R. No. L-32792 February 2, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO BASTASA
G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 - LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN v. ROMEO F. EDU
G.R. No. L-42608 February 6, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO TAMPUS
G.R. No. L-46942 February 6, 1979 - ROMULA MABALE v. SIMPLICIO APALISOK
G.R. Nos. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979 - TOMATIC ARATUC v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-19937 February 19, 1979 - ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY-SILAY, INC. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-41430 February 19, 1979 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. MATILDE LIM
G.R. No. L-49818 February 20, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS M. RAMOS
G.R. No. L-25601 February 21, 1979 - LUISA V. VDA. DE GUISON v. CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY
G.R. No. L-41684 February 21, 1979 - ANTONIO CRUZ v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ
G.R. No. L-26096 February 27, 1979 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SILVERETRA ABABA
G.R. No. L-37737 February 27, 1979 - MAXIMO NOCNOC v. ISIDORO A. VERA
G.R. No. L-38837 February 27, 1979 - JOSE S. DINEROS v. MARCIANO C. ROQUE
G.R. No. L-44063 February 27, 1979 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
G.R. No. L-46582 February 27, 1979 - POGONG SOLIWEG v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-48315 February 27, 1979 - DOMINADOR B. BORJE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL
A.C. No. 1582 February 28, 1979 - ENEDENA AGAWA VDA. DE ORIBIANA v. FIDENCIO H. GERIO
A.M. No. P-1641 February 28, 1979 - RODOLFO PAA v. VALENTIN C. REMIGIO
A.M. No. P-1687 February 28, 1979 - ANGEL MANALILI v. DANILO VIESCA
A.M. No. P-1769 February 28, 1979 - CRESENCIO GARCIA v. ALBERTO ASILO
G.R. No. L-24392 February 28, 1979 - ANACLETO ONDAP v. BONIFACIO ABUGAA
G.R. No. L-25316 February 28, 1979 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY
G.R. No. L-27343 February 28, 1979 - MANUEL G. SINGSONG v. ISABELA SAWMILL
G.R. Nos. L-27856-57 February 28, 1979 - RUSTICO PASCUAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
G.R. No. L-29857 February 28, 1979 - LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, INC. v. DOROTEO L. SERRANO
G.R. No. L-31481 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SARIP
G.R. No. L-33063 February 28, 1979 - CATALINO CATINDIG v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. L-39367-69 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO A. CONCHADA
G.R. No. L-41107 February 28, 1979 - AMANDA L. VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-41819 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WINSTON P. MANLAPAZ
G.R. No. L-42455 February 28, 1979 - ERNESTO CERCADO v. DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
G.R. No. L-42774 February 28, 1979 - MANILA TIMES PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43006 February 28, 1979 - BIBIANA CAOILI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-43555 February 28, 1979 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43748 February 28, 1979 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. E. RAZON, INC.
G.R. No. L-43854 February 28, 1979 - GLICERIA LASARTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-44353 February 28, 1979 - MARTHA FERANIL v. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA
G.R. No. L-44884 February 28, 1979 - BENJAMIN JARANILLA, JR. v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL
G.R. No. L-45270 February 28, 1979 - LUIS T. PEGGY v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR
G.R. No. L-45633 February 28, 1979 - ELIZABETH PAPILOTA v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1978
MANUEL J. C. REYES v. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO
G.R. No. L-49375 February 28, 1979 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. FILEMON H. MENDOZA
MANUEL J. C. REYES v. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO