LUZON
STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and
LEONARDA VDA. DE HAYSON, respondents
G.R. No. L-37896 | July 22, 1981
FACTS:
The deceased, Pantaleon Hayson, was
employed by the respondent Luzon Stevedoring Corporation as a Gang Boss or
capataz. On February 16, 1970 at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, the
deceased was on duty on board the M/V President Aguinaldo. While he and his
other co-workers were waiting for the cargoes, the 3rd Officer of the M/V
President Aguinaldo approached them. Since there was a party on board the boat
at that time and since it was a cold night, the deceased asked for something to
drink from the 3rd Officer. So, the 3rd Officer later gave them a half-filled
bottle of pocket-size Tanduay Rhum. The group then took turns in drinking from
the said bottle with the deceased taking the first drink. They later found out
that the contents of the said bottle was not liquor but oil of wintergreen. At
around 4:40 AM the next day, Pantaleon died due to poisoning.
The Referee ruled that the death of
Pantaleon Hayson arose out of and in the course of his employment as capataz
and ordered Luzon Stevedoring Corporation to pay compensation and burial
expenses.
Herein petitioner filed a motion a motion
for reconsideration of the Referee’s decision raising as sole ground the
allegation that Pantaleon Hayson was notoriously negligent, hence, his death is
not Compensable under Section 4 of Act 3428, as amended.
ISSUE:
Whether the claim for compensation benefit
on account of Pantaleon Hayson’s demise due to accidental poisoning when he
mistook oil of wintergreen for Tanduay Rhum falls within the coverage of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.
RULING:
Pantaleon was not notoriously negligent.
In the case at bar, it was established that
the deceased was not a heavy drinker and at the time they asked something to
drink from the 3rd Officer of the boat, the deceased or his
companions were not shown to have drunk any liquor or anything that could have
affected the mental state of the deceased at the time he asked a drink from the
said Officer. Nor was it shown that previous to the incident, the deceased was
so despondent that there was an intention on his part to end his life. All that
they did in asking for a drink from the Officer is what ordinary persons would
do under the circumstances.
In the nature of their job, occasional
drinking is quite ordinary and does not in any way violate standard rules and
regulations, unless of course the same is done to the extent of causing drunkenness.
Being not a drinker as he was, the deceased could not be expected to know the
different tastes of wines. That what he drank contained oil of wintergreen made
no difference to him because as stated, he was not a drinker and could not have
distinguished the taste of the kind of wine, so much so, that when his
companions tasted the wine later, and told him that it contained oil of
wintergreen, he even bragged that it was stateside, an act which projected his
innocence. And even if he drank after he was told that the bottle contained oil
of wintergreen, still the same could not constitute notorious negligence on his
part, because there was no showing that he admitted knowledge that the contents
of the bottle was oil of wintergreen, nor was there a warning made by his
companions that drinking the same could be fatal to him.
To constitute notorious negligence, it must
be shown that the act of the deceased entirely wants in care as to raise a
presumption that he was conscious of the probable consequences of his
carelessness and indifferent to the danger of injury to himself and other
persons. It must be equivalent to the doing of an intentional wrong.
In the case of Paez v. WCC, the court
defined notorious negligence as something more than mere or simple negligence,
or contributory negligence; it signifies a deliberate act of the employee to
disregard his own personal safety.
Acts reasonably necessary to health and
comfort of an employee while at work, such as satisfaction of his thirst,
hunger, or other physical demands, or protecting himself from excessive cold,
are incidental to the employment and injuries sustained in the performance of
such acts are compensable as arising out of and in the course of the
employment.
Comments
Post a Comment