G.R. No. L-43792 October 12, 1984
Pedro Baldebrin, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and The Bureau of Lands, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro O. Baldebrin was employed as a Computer at the Bureau of Lands. On April 21, 1970, a Friday, he figured in an accident while going home from his official station in Pagadian City to his residence in Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur. While riding a bus in the municipality of Tukuran, a pebble hit his left eye. This injury necessitated several leaves of absence totaling 128 days.
Upon his return to work, the injury worsened, resulting in a 50% loss of vision in his left eye as medically evaluated. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit recommended an award of compensation, attorney’s fees, and costs against the Bureau of Lands, which failed to contest the claim despite notice. However, the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission absolved the Bureau of Lands from liability, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the injury sustained by the petitioner, which occurred while he was traveling home from his place of work, arose “out of and in the course of employment” as required for compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award. The legal logic hinges on a liberal interpretation of the phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” consistent with the Act’s social justice purpose. The Court applied the “going to and from work” rule, established in prior jurisprudence such as Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Employment encompasses not only the actual performance of work but also a reasonable margin of time and space necessary for passage to and from the workplace. An injury occurring during such passage, with the employer’s express or implied consent, over a route that is in practical effect part of the employer’s premises, is deemed to arise from and in the course of employment. Here, the accident happened while the petitioner was on his regular journey home after work hours, a necessary transit from his official station.
The facts are fundamentally similar to cited precedents where injuries during commute were held compensable. The Bureau of Lands presented no evidence to rebut the claim or prove notorious negligence. Therefore, the injury is compensable. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, as social legislation, must be liberally construed to achieve its remedial objective of providing relief to workers.