vda de santiago v. reyes (2)

2
VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. REYES February 29, 1960 | Labrador, J. | Review by certiorari | The Law-Fact Distinction SUMMARY: Petitioners filed a claim for compensation due to the death of Victoriano Santiago, a jeepney driver with a prescribed route within Manila and the suburbs, who was murdered and whose body was found in Quezon. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission found that his death did not arise out of was not occasioned in the course his employment since he voluntarily went out of his route, thereby violating public service rules. SC held that the employer failed to present evidence in order to rebut the presumption in favor of the employee. DOCTRINE: Sec. 43 of the Workman’s Compensation Act establishes a presumption that the deceased died while in the course of his employment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the other party to prove, based on substantial evidence, otherwise. FACTS: 1. Victoriano Santiago was the driver of an autocalesa (jeepney) owned by Angela Reyes. He was last seen operating said jeepney at 9pm of Sept. 26, 1955. His body was found the morning after in Tayabas, Quezon, obviously a victim of murder by persons at large and whose identities were not known. It was submitted that respondent gave specific instructions to follow the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission (within Manila and suburbs). 2. Petitioners filed a claim for compensation before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. In deciding whether Santiago’s death arose out of or was occasioned in the course of his employment, 2 members of the Commission found that the deceased driver’s act of deviating from the route prescribed for his observance constituted a positive factor in bringing about his own demise, and found the deceased to have willfully violated public service rules and regulations, hence, the majority denied the claim. 3. Assoc. Commissioner del Rosario dissented, stating that there are legal presumptions in favor of the employee that (a) the claim comes within the provisions of the compensation law, and that (b) “the injury is not occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or of another”. These presumptions were also established in Sec. 42 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Thus, the burden of proof shifts to the employer who must present substantial evidence in order to overcome the presumptions, which, in this case, was not presented. ISSUE/S: WoN the death of the deceased arose out of or was occasioned in the course of his employment – YES. HELD/RULING: Decision SET ASIDE. Respondent ordered to pay the compensation due the heirs under the law. RATIO: 1. The Majority’s reasoning violates the presumption laid down in Sec. 69, par. (q), Rule 123 of the RoC: “That the ordinary course of business has been followed”. Since there is no question that the deceased, immediately before leaving Manila, was engaged in his employment, then the presumption is that he performed his duties legally and in accordance with the rules and regulations because this was his regular obligation. As such, it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove that he did otherwise, or to prove that he failed to comply with the regulations, that is, that the deceased voluntarily went out of his route and drove his jeepney towards the province of Quezon. They failed to do so. There being no such evidence submitted by the respondent, we must conclude that he was forced by the circumstances beyond his will to go outside of his route (threats of the malefactors who killed him). 2. The Court cited Batangas Transportation Co. v. Josefina de Rivera, et. al, wherein the bus driver was held to have died in the course of his employment

Upload: james-evan-i-obnamia

Post on 16-Aug-2015

223 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

DESCRIPTION

digest

TRANSCRIPT

VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. REYESFebruary 29, 1960 | Labrador, J. | Review by certiorari | The Law-Fact DistictioSUMMARY:!etitioers "i#ed a c#ai$"or co$%esatio due to the death o"&ictoriao 'atia(o, a )ee%ey driver with a %rescribed route withi *ai#a ad thesuburbs, who was $urdered ad whose body was "oud i +ue,o. The -or.$e/s0o$%esatio0o$$issio"oud that his death didot arise out o" was otoccasioed i the course his e$%#oy$et sice he vo#utari#y wet out o" his route,therebyvio#ati(%ub#ic serviceru#es.'0he#d thatthe e$%#oyer"ai#edto %resetevidece i order to rebut the %resu$%tio i "avor o" the e$%#oyee.DOCTRINE:'ec. 12 o" the -or.$a/s 0o$%esatio 3ct estab#ishes a%resu$%tio that the deceased died whi#e i the course o" his e$%#oy$et.There"ore, it is icu$bet u%othe other %artyto%rove, basedosubstatia#evidece, otherwise.FACTS:1. &ictoriao 'atia(o was the driver o" a autoca#esa 4)ee%ey5 owed by 3(e#aReyes. 6e was #ast see o%erati( said )ee%ey at 9%$ o" 'e%t. 26, 1977. 6isbody was "oud the $ori( a"ter i Tayabas, +ue,o, obvious#y a victi$ o"$urder by%ersos at #ar(e adwhose idetities were ot .ow. 8t wassub$itted that res%odet (ave s%eci"ic istructios to "o##owthe route%rescribed by the !ub#ic 'ervice 0o$$issio 4withi *ai#a ad suburbs5.2. !etitioers "i#ed a c#ai$ "or co$%esatio be"ore the -or.$e/s 0o$%esatio0o$$issio. 8 decidi( whether 'atia(o/s death arose out o" or wasoccasioedithecourseo"hise$%#oy$et, 2$e$berso"the0o$$issio"oud that the deceased driver/s act o" deviati( "ro$ the route %rescribed "orhis observace costituted a %ositive "actor i bri(i( about his ow de$ise,ad"oudthedeceasedtohavewi##"u##yvio#ated%ub#icserviceru#es adre(u#atios, hece, the $a)ority deied the c#ai$.2. 3ssoc. 0o$$issioer de# Rosario disseted, stati( that there are #e(a#%resu$%tiosi"avor o" thee$%#oyeethat 4a5 thec#ai$co$eswithithe%rovisios o" the co$%esatio #aw, ad that 4b5 9the i)ury is ot occasioedbythewi##"u#itetioo"thei)urede$%#oyeetobri(aboutthei)uryordeath o" hi$se#" or o" aother:. These %resu$%tios were a#so estab#ished i'ec. 12 o" the -or.$e/s 0o$%esatio 3ct. Thus, the burde o" %roo" shi"tsto the e$%#oyer who $ust %reset substatia# evidece i order to overco$e the%resu$%tios, which, i this case, was ot %reseted.ISSUE/S:-o;thedeatho"thedeceasedaroseouto"orwasoccasioedithecourse o" his e$%#oy$et < =>'.HELD/RULING:Decisio '>T 3'8D>. Res%odet ordered to %ay theco$%esatio due the heirs uder the #aw.RATIO:1. The *a)ority/s reasoi( vio#ates the %resu$%tio #aid dow i 'ec. 69, %ar.4?5, Ru#e122o" theRo0@ 9That theordiarycourseo" busiesshasbee"o##owed:. 'icethereiso?uestiothat thedeceased, i$$ediate#ybe"ore#eavi( *ai#a, was e(a(ed i his e$%#oy$et, the the %resu$%tio is thathe %er"or$ed his duties #e(a##y ad i accordace with the ru#es ad re(u#atiosbecausethiswashisre(u#arob#i(atio.3ssuch, itwasicu$betu%otheres%odet to %rove that he did otherwise, or to %rove that he "ai#ed to co$%#ywith the re(u#atios, that is, that the deceased vo#utari#y wet out o" his routead drove his )ee%ey towards the %rovice o" +ue,o. They "ai#ed to do so.There bei( o such evidece sub$itted by the res%odet, we $ust coc#udethat he was "orced by the circu$staces beyod his wi## to (o outside o" hisroute 4threats o" the $a#e"actors who .i##ed hi$5.2. The 0ourt citedAata(as Tras%ortatio0o. v. Jose"ia deRivera, et. a#,wherei the bus driver was he#d to have died i the course o" his e$%#oy$eteve i" there were idicatios that there was %ersoa# ai$osity betwee theassai#at ad the victi$ which $ay have caused the assau#t. 'ice the deceaseddied whi#e drivi( the bus, the his death $ust have bee due to hise$%#oy$et. The %reset case is stro(er that the above-cited case, sice thereare o such idicatios %reset i this case. 3. The 0ourt ru#ed that the decisio o" the $a)ority which has bee a%%ea#ed "ro$is ot i cosoace with the #aw ad the eB%ress %rovisio o" 'ectio 12 o" the-or.$eCs 0o$%esatio LawD ad that by reaso o" such eB%ress %rovisio o"the #aw, it he#d that &ictoriao 'atia(o died by reaso o" ad i the course o"his e$%#oy$et ad cose?uet#y his heirs are etit#ed to receive theco$%esatio %rovided "or by #aw i such cases.