GR L 16202; (June, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16202; June 29, 1962
ILOILO DOCK AND ENGINEERING CO., petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and FLORENTINO VISITACION, respondents.
FACTS
Salvador Visitacion was a clerk employed by the Iloilo Dock and Engineering Co. (IDECO), a department of the Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company. He was also the president of a labor union whose members were employees of IDECO. On the afternoon of June 23, 1958, during his working hours, Visitacion left his office building and was shot and killed in front of the building within the company compound by Cerson Espinosa. Espinosa was a leader of a rival labor union also claiming to represent IDECO employees, but he was not an employee of the company and had entered the compound without the company’s knowledge or permission. At the time of the incident, a petition for a certification election between the two unions was pending before the Court of Industrial Relations.
ISSUE
Whether the death of Salvador Visitacion, which occurred during his working hours and within his employer’s premises, is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act despite the lack of clear evidence that it arose out of his employment.
RULING
Yes, the death is compensable. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission correctly awarded death benefits. The legal logic hinges on the distinction and connection between “in the course of” and “arising out of” employment. The Commission found the death occurred “in the course of” employment, as it happened within the period of his duty and at a place where he had a right to be. The petitioner argued the death resulted from a personal quarrel and rivalry between union leaders, thus not “arising out of” his employment duties. However, the Court found this assumption groundless, as no evidence was presented to establish such a personal motive or enmity.
The Court sustained the Commission’s application of the legal principle that the absence of specific evidence of a work-connected cause for an assault is not fatal to a claim if the death occurred in the course of employment. This ruling aligns with the precedent set in Batangas Transportation Co. vs. Vda. de Rivera. The Court emphasized that when death occurs in the course of employment, a presumption arises that it also arose out of the employment. The burden to rebut this presumption shifts to the employer. Here, the petitioner failed to present evidence to overcome the presumption, as it did not prove the killing was due to a purely personal matter unrelated to Visitacion’s employment or his role as a union leader involved in a representation dispute concerning company employees. Therefore, the compensability of the death stands affirmed.