GR L 26341; (November, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26341 November 27, 1968
Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co., petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Irenea M. Pablo, for herself and in behalf of her minor children Edwin, Edgar and Edna, all surnamed Pablo, respondents.
FACTS
Teodoro G. Pablo, employed as a mechanic by Iloilo Dock and Engineering Co. (IDECO), was shot to death at about 5:02 p.m. on January 29, 1960. The incident occurred on a private road commonly called the IDECO road, in front of and about 20 meters away from the main IDECO gate, while Pablo was walking home after finishing overtime work at 5:00 p.m. His companion was a co-employee, Rodolfo Galopez, also going home. The assailant, Martin Cordero, did not say anything before or after the killing, and the motive remains unknown as Cordero was killed before trial. Along the road from the main gate to the scene, there were four “carinderias” on the left and two “carinderias” and a residential house on the right. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed a Regional Office decision ordering IDECO to pay death compensation, burial expenses, attorney’s fees, and administrative fees to Pablo’s widow and minor children. IDECO appealed, contesting the compensability of the death.
ISSUE
Whether Teodoro G. Pablo’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment, making it compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding Pablo’s death compensable. The Court applied the “proximity rule,” an exception to the general “going and coming rule.” The killing occurred on the employer’s private road, a customary means of ingress and egress, immediately after work hours and very near the main gate (about 20 meters away). This placed the incident within the “zone of employment.” The Court emphasized the unitary concept of “work-connection” and noted that the Act creates a presumption of compensability when an injury occurs on the employer’s premises. Since the death happened on the IDECO road, which was part of the employer’s premises used by employees to enter and exit, it was deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The unknown motive of the assailant did not break the work-connection, as the risk was incidental to the employment by virtue of the time, place, and circumstances of the killing.