BALILO, VICTORIA MARIE S.

2A – 11-22-2017

SOC AG ASSIGNMENT

1.
Eleazar’s claim for employee’s compensation for Temporary Total
Disability is compensable although there is a deviation from his normal route.

An injury or death of a covered member in an accident while he is going

to, or coming from, the workplace, shall be duly considered compensable
provided the following requisites are present:
a. The act of the employee of going to, or coming from, the
workplace, must have been a continuing act, that is, he had not
been diverted therefrom by any other activity, and he had not
departed from his usual route to, or from, his workplace; and
b. Re: an employee on a special errand, the special errand must have
been official and in connection with his work.

In the case at bar, the act of Eleazar in choosing to travel by land

because there was no available direct flight from Palawan to Manila was falling
under the “going to, or coming from rule” making the injuries that Eleazar
sustained due to the vehicular accident on his way to work should be construed
as "arising out of or in the course of employment" and thus, compensable.

It is a well settled rule that when an employee is accidentally injured at a

point reasonably proximate to the place at work, while he is going to and from
his work, such injury is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his
employment. In this case, it is not disputed that Eleazar while going to the place
of his work, sustained an injury. He was at the place where his job necessarily
required him to be if he was to reach his place of work on time. His received an
instruction that he was ordered to return to work as fast as possible. By such
order of “as fast as possible to return to work”, he would not opted to travel by
land when he saw that there was no available direct flight from Manila to
Palawan. He would not have deviate from the usual route in travelling by plane
from Palawan to Manila were it not for the said urgency of order. There was
nothing private or personal about Eleazar’s being at the place of the accident.
He was there because his employment required him to be there.
 Moreover, it is in our jurisprudence that employment includes not only the
actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary
to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done. If the
employee be injured while passing, with the express or implied consent of the
employer, to or from his work by a way over the employer's premises, or over
those of another in such proximity and relation as to be in practical effect a part
of the employer's premises, the injury is one arising out of and in the course of
the employment as much as though it had happened while the employee was
engaged in his work at the place of its performance and such instance is in the
case at bar.

Hence, applying all the settled rules and principles, Eleazar’s claim for
employee’s compensation for Temporary Total Disability is compensable.
 2.
a. Is the death of Dan compensable?

Yes, the death of Dan is compensable.

Based on a case decided by Supreme Court, according to American

authorities, suicide is compensable in the following cases:
1. When it results from insanity resulting from compensable work injury
or disease;
2. When it occurs during a delirium resulting from compensable
disease.

Self-destruction is not presumed. The laborer is presumed to take the

necessary precautions to avoid injury to himself, unless an intention is attributed
to him to end his life. That presumption is based on the instinct of self-
preservation.

Notorious negligence is something more than mere or simple negligence,

or contributory negligence. It signifies a deliberate act of the employee to
disregard his own personal safety. In the case at bar, there is no showing at all
that deceased had deliberately disregarded his safety as no intention was
attributed to him to end his life or that he want only courted death because at
the time he committed suicide, he was not in his proper mind. The deceased is
not in his proper mind when he committed suicide because two days prior to
the incident, he already exhibited unusual behavior toward his fellow crew
members as he was allegedly apologetic for all his mistakes and he was overly
anxious over the near completion of his contract onboard the vessel. Self-
destruction is not presumed. The laborer is presumed to take the necessary
precautions to avoid injury to himself, unless an intention is attributed to him to
end his life.

Hence, the claim for Dan’s death benefits should be granted. Although
the deceased committed suicide, such suicide is compensable because it
resulted from insanity.
 b. Is the claim of Notorious Negligence meritorious considering that no
records were found and reliance was mainly on witness account?

No, the claim of Notorious Negligence is unmeritorious.

Although there were no records found and such reliance was mainly on
account, such evidence is already sufficient to satisfy the claim of the
deceased. Proof of direct causal relation between the resulting injury and the
nature of work is not indispensably required. It is enough that the claimant
adduces proof of reasonable work connection, whereby the development of
the disease was brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of
the job. Strict rules of evidence are not demanded. The degree of proof
required is merely substantial evidence, which has been held to be such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a
conclusion.
 3.
a. Is the death of Gil compensable?

The death of Gil is not compensable because he committed suicide, and

such death is not considered as a work-related death.

The mere death of the seaman during the term of his employment does
not automatically give rise to compensation. When the death of the seaman
resulted from a deliberate or willful act on his own life, and it is directly
attributable to the seaman, such death is not compensable. It is provided in Art.
172 of the Labor Code:
ART. 172. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
“The State Insurance Fund shall be liable for compensation to the
employee or his dependents, except when the disability or death was
occasioned by the employee's intoxication, willful intention to injure or kill himself
or another, notorious negligence, or otherwise provided under this Title.”

In the case at bar, the death of Gil resulted from a deliberate or willful act
to take his own life. Such suicide is supported by medico-legal report that Gil
died due to Cardiac Arrest caused by hanging. The actual cause of death of Gil
is “suicidal asphyxia due to hanging.” Such resulting death is intentionally self-
inflicted, which contemplates a deliberate intent on the part of the employee,
not a failure on his part to realize the probable consequences to himself of his
foolish act and Article 172 precludes compensation when the injury is self-
inflicted or due to willful intent on the part of the employee to injure himself.
Such willful intention of Gil to kill himself will not warrant such benefits to the
claimants. It is a well settled jurisprudence that death is not compensable if
suicide is duly proven.

Thus, the death of Gil is not compensable because he committed suicide,

and such death is not considered as a work-related death.

b. How can it be defended as work-related?

The death of Gil can be compensable and can be defended as work-

related death if such work of Gil increased the risk of such illness of Gil.

It is provided in Board Resolution 93-08-0068, to wit:

 3. INCREASED RISK:

3.1. There is increased risk if the illness is caused or precipitated by factors

inherent in the employees' nature of work and working conditions. It does
not include aggravation of a pre-existing illness; and

3.2. To establish compensability of the claim under the increased risk

theory, the claimant must show proof of work-connection. The degree of
proof required is merely substantial evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;

In the case at bar, such working conditions of Gil increased his illness. Gil
was suffering from an emotional trauma which has been diagnosed by the
physician, and despite his illness, he was not allowed to be repatriated. Family
separation is a loneliness in a strange place that can lead to depression, even
despondency and suicide. Such loneliness he felt contributed or aggravated his
emotional trauma. Such instance of not allowing Gil to go home to his family
due to the nature of his work warrants that he committed suicide because of
such emotional trauma being aggravated by not allowing him to be
repatriated. Such loneliness he felt when not allowed to go home to his family
increased the risk of the illness of him, and such instance not allowing him to go
home to his family is due to the nature of his work and working conditions.

Hence, applying all the principles to the facts of this case, such death of
Gil resulted from suicide should be considered as a work-related death. Thus,
Gil’s descendants claim of employee’s compensation for death benefits should
be granted.
 4. S

The injury and the resulting disability or death sustained by reason of

employment are compensable regardless of the place where the incident
occurred, if it can be proven that at the time of the contingency, the employee
was acting within the purview of the employment and performing an act
reasonably necessary or incidental thereto

For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury
must be the result of accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment.

5.
a. Is the claim of Albert compensable?

Yes, the claim of Albert is compensable.

Where an employee is injured while at recreation during a temporary

cessation of work, the injury is compensable as arising out of and in the course of
employment where the recreation indulged in was fostered and encouraged
by the employer to the end of efficiency of their service.

In the case at bar, although Albert was not on duty at the time of his
accident while playing basketball, such basketball game was intended for
physical fitness of the crew. Such basketball game activity, by its consistency
and regularity, has become an incident of Albert’s employment. Such injury of
Albert is compensable as it is arising out of and in the course of employment
where the basketball game indulged in was fostered and encouraged by the
employer to the end of efficiency of their service.
 Moreover, it is a well settled rule that compensation has been awarded
for an injury suffered by an employee while engaged in a recreational activity
where such activity, by its consistency and regularity, has become an incident
of the employment, as in the case at bar of ball games regularly played on the
employer's premises during lunch or other nonworking periods.

Hence, Albert’s claim for employee’s compensation is compensable.

b. When can recreational activities be considered within the coverage

of PD 626?

Recreational activities that can be considered within the coverage of PD

626 fall under the so-called "special engagement rule" which is one of the
exceptions to the "direct premises rule." It is where an employee is injured while
at recreation during a temporary cessation of work, the injury is compensable as
arising out of and in the course of employment where the recreation indulged in
was fostered and encouraged by the employer to the end of efficiency of their
service. This exception covers field trips, intramurals, outings, and picnics when
initiated or sanctioned by the employer. Accidents befalling employees on
those occasions are compensable.
Compensation has been awarded for an injury suffered by an employee
while engaged in a recreational activity where such activity, by its consistency
and regularity, has become an incident of the employment, as in the case of
ball games regularly played on the employer's premises during lunch or other
nonworking periods.