JUANITA
NITURA, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE SYSTEM (PHILIPPINE ARMY), respondents
G.R. No. 89217 | Sept. 4, 1991
FACTS:
In the evening of March 2, 1986, Pfc Regino
S. Nitura was instructed to go to San Jose, Dipolog City to check on several
personnel of the Command who were then attending a dance party. On his way back
to the camp, he fell from a hanging wooden bridge connecting Barangay San Jose,
Dipolog City and Barangay Basagan, Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte, his head
hitting the stony portion of the ground.
Petitioner filed a death claim for
compensation benefits with the GSIS. However, it was denied on the ground that the
condition for compensability, that the injury and the resulting disability or
death must be the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment, has not been satisfied. Her request for reconsideration was
likewise denied on the ground that her son was not at his place of work nor
performing his official function as a PA soldier when the accident occurred.
The
ECC affirmed the denial of petitioner’s claim by the GSIS.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the death of Pfc. Nitura is compensable
RULING:
The concept of a “work place” referred to
cannot always be literally applied to a soldier in active duty status, as if he
were a machine operator or a worker in an assembly lne in a factory or a clerk
in a particular fixed office. A soldier must go where his company is stationed.
In the case at bar, Pfc. Nitura’s station was at Basagan, Katipunan, Zamboanga
del Norte, But then his presence at the site of the accident was with the
permission of his superior officer having been directed to go to Barangay San
Jose, Dipolog City. In carrying out said directive, he had to pass by the
hanging bridge which connects the two places. As held in the Hinoguin case, a
place where soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at cannot be very
different, legally speaking, from a place where they are required to go by
their commanding officer.
A soldier on active duty status is really
on a 24 hours a day official duty status and is subject to military discipline
and military law 24 hours a day. He is subject to call and to the orders of his
superior officers at all times, 7 days a week, except, of course, when he is on
vacation leave status. Thus, a soldier should be presumed to be on official
duty unless he is shown to have clearly and unequivocally put aside that status
or condition temporarily by going on an approved vacation leave. Even vacation
leaves may, it must be remembered, be preterminated by superior orders. In the
instant case, the deceased was neither on vacation leave nor on an overnight
pass when the incident occurred. In fact, he was directed by his superior to
check on several personnel of the command then attending the dance party, as
attested to by his Battalion Commander. Hence, since Pfc. Nitura was not on
vacation leave, he did not effectively cease performing “official functions.”
Comments
Post a Comment