G.R. No. L-8114; May 25, 1955
HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and PACITA S. VDA. DE SUATARON, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a claim for compensation filed by Pacita S. Vda. de Suataron, widow of Romeo Suataron, on behalf of herself and their minor children. Romeo Suataron, a security guard for the Hawaiian-Philippine Company, was killed on January 29, 1952, by a fellow security guard, Benigno Duazo, while both were on company premises. The incident occurred when Duazo, who was off-duty, arrived at Post No. 1 where Suataron was on duty. Duazo entered the police office, later stood at the door holding a shotgun, and told Suataron to stand. Suataron stood and said, “Pare, do not joke with that gun.” After sitting back down, Suataron was shot in the face by Duazo and died instantly. Duazo then committed suicide. Investigations by the company’s Chief of Police and the local Chief of Police concluded the shooting was accidental, noting the two were good friends with no known prior misunderstandings. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner affirmed a referee’s award granting death benefits to Suataron’s family. The company appealed, arguing the death did not arise out of employment and was due to Suataron’s notorious negligence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of Romeo Suataron arose out of his employment.
2. Whether Suataron was guilty of notorious negligence that would bar compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, holding that the death was compensable.
1. The death arose out of and in the course of employment. The Court found the fatal injury resulted from an accident traceable to risks peculiar to the employment. Both men were security guards provided with firearms, and the incident occurred during Suataron’s duty hours at his post. The Court analogized the situation to cases involving horseplay among employees, citing Leonbruno v. Champlain Silk Mills, where a non-participating victim of horseplay is entitled to compensation. The risk of such an accident was a peril of the service, stemming from the “associations and conditions inseparable from factory life” and, here, from the specific nature of security work involving firearms. The fact that Duazo, as a fellow guard, could freely approach and handle Suataron’s gun was a condition arising from their employment.
2. Suataron was not guilty of notorious negligence. The Court agreed with the Commissioner that Suataron was, at most, guilty of simple negligence for allowing a co-employee to handle his gun, but this did not constitute the “notorious negligence” required by Section 4 of Act No. 3428 to bar compensation. Suataron was entitled to assume Duazo, a fellow guard and good friend, knew how to handle the weapon safely. Therefore, the award of death benefits, burial expenses, and costs was upheld.