GR L 35745; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982
JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO, ET AL. vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
FACTS
Jorge B. Licardo, an elevator mechanic-examiner for Otis Elevator Company since 1947, was assigned to service elevators at the Philamlife Building. On April 23, 1969, he left home early, informing his wife he had to pass by his employer’s main office on Marquez de Comillas Street to secure spare parts and equipment needed for his repair work at Philamlife. While crossing Ayala Boulevard, about a block from the company office, he was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver at approximately 7:10 A.M. His death certificate listed the cause as traumatic skull fracture.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission denied the claim for death benefits filed by his widow. The Commission ruled the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, applying the “going to and coming from work” rule. It found Licardo was merely on his way to report for his regular 8:00 A.M. duty and that the accident occurred on a public road, not a route peculiar to his employment. It rejected the argument that he was on a special errand for his employer at the time.
ISSUE
Whether the death of Jorge B. Licardo is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, or whether it is barred by the “going to and coming from work” rule.
RULING
Yes, the death is compensable. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision. The general rule excludes injuries sustained while commuting to or from work, as they typically lack a causal connection to the employment. However, a recognized exception exists when the employee is performing a “special errand” or task for the employer at the time of the accident, which takes the activity outside the normal routine of going to and from work.
The legal logic applied is that Licardo’s purpose for being at the location of the accident was not merely to report for his regular duty. The evidence established he was on a specific mission to procure spare parts and equipment from the main office to facilitate his repair work at his assigned site. This constituted a special task or errand undertaken for the benefit of his employer, distinct from his ordinary commute. Consequently, at the precise time of the accident, he was engaged in an activity arising out of and in the course of his employment. The peril he encountered was directly linked to this special duty. Therefore, his heirs are entitled to death compensation benefits, burial expenses, and reimbursement for medical costs as awarded by the Court.