G.R. No. L-14827; October 31, 1960
CHUA YENG, petitioner, vs. MICHAELA ROMA, and her minor children GUADALUPE, PILAR, ROSARIO, CORNELIO and GERARDO, respondents.

FACTS

Santos Romeo was employed as a cargador by petitioner Chua Yeng, loading and unloading copra at a warehouse in Cebu City. On May 16, 1956, during work hours, he asked permission from his employer to get a drink of water because the water pump at the warehouse was out of order. He went to his employer’s house across the street. While drinking water in the kitchen, he saw a puppy eating fried fish from an open cabinet. He tried to drive the puppy away by saying “tse” and making a motion with his hand, during which his right hand was bitten by the puppy. The puppy was not owned by the petitioner. Santos Romeo later died on June 26, 1958, from hydrophobia resulting from the dog bite. His heirs (respondents) filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

ISSUE

Whether the death of Santos Romeo arose “out of and in the course of” his employment, making it compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

Yes, the death is compensable. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
The Court held that acts reasonably necessary for the health and comfort of an employee while at work, such as satisfying thirst, are incidental to employment. Injuries sustained during such acts are generally compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment. The deceased was driven to go to the employer’s house due to the employer’s fault in not providing an adequate water supply at the workplace.
The act of driving away the puppy, which led to the bite, was not a voluntary deviation from his duties. It was an instinctive act motivated by a sense of loyalty to protect the employer’s property, which is not wholly foreign to his duties as a laborer. The Court cited analogous cases where compensation was granted for injuries sustained while employees performed acts incidental to their duties or in the interest of their employer.
Furthermore, the injury was causally connected to the conditions of employment. The lack of adequate and sanitary drinking water at the place of work forced the deceased to cross a public street, exposing him to hazards that could have been avoided.
Finally, the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation intended to effect social justice, and its provisions must be liberally construed in favor of the workingman. Therefore, the award of compensation was proper. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.