G.R. No. 132916; November 16, 2001
RUFINA TANCINCO, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM and EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

SPO1 Eddie G. Tancinco, a member of the PNP assigned to the security detail of then Vice-President Joseph Estrada, was shot and killed by unidentified armed men on July 17, 1995. The incident occurred while he was off-duty and repairing a service vehicle in front of his house in Batangas, as the Vice-President was abroad for medical treatment. His widow, petitioner Rufina Tancinco, filed a claim for death benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
The GSIS denied the claim, ruling the death was not work-related. The Employees’ Compensation Commission affirmed, finding the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment as SPO1 Tancinco was on off-duty status and not performing an official function. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition due to procedural defects, including a defective certification of non-forum shopping and failure to state material dates. Her motion for reconsideration was filed over seven months late and was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition and whether SPO1 Tancinco’s death is compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. Procedurally, the appeal was not timely filed. The period to appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioner filed her motion for reconsideration 231 days late without offering any explanation for the delay, rendering the CA’s resolution final and executory.
Substantively, the death is not compensable. For an injury or death to be compensable, it must result from an employment accident satisfying all conditions under the rules: (1) the employee must be injured at the place his work requires him to be; (2) he must be performing his official functions; or (3) if injured elsewhere, he must be executing an order for the employer. None were met. First, as a security detail, his required place was with the Vice-President, who was abroad; he was at home. Second, he was not performing official functions. While policemen are considered on 24-hour duty, compensability extends only to acts “basically police service in character.” Repairing a vehicle is incidental, not an essential police duty. Third, no evidence showed he was acting under a superior’s order. The claim lacked the required substantial evidence. The Court expressed sympathy but upheld the denial based on procedural and substantive law.