Hawaiian-Philippine Company v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romeo Suataron, a security guard employed by Hawaiian-Philippine Company, was shot and killed by his co-employee, Benigno Duazo, also a security guard of the same company, on January 29, 1952. After shooting Suataron, Duazo committed suicide. Both were on duty at the time of the incident. The Chief of Police of the company investigated the incident and concluded that the shooting was accidental, and Duazo's subsequent suicide was a result of seeing his friend dead. The Chief of Police of Silay, Negros Occidental, reached a similar conclusion. Procedural History: Pacita S. Vda. de Suataron, widow of the deceased Romeo Suataron, filed a claim for compensation on behalf of herself and their minor children. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner affirmed the award of a referee, ordering Hawaiian-Philippine Company to pay compensation to the claimants, burial expenses, and costs. The Petition: Hawaiian-Philippine Company appealed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, contending that the death of Romeo Suataron did not arise out of his employment and was caused by his notorious negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of Romeo Suataron arose out of his employment. Whether the death of Romeo Suataron was caused by his notorious negligence.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is affirmed. Hawaiian-Philippine Company is ordered to pay the claimants the sum of P2,171.52 with legal interest, P100.00 as burial expenses, and P22.00 as costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death arose out of employment: The Court held that the death of Romeo Suataron arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Court reasoned that the incident, though involving horseplay with a firearm, was a risk incidental to the employment of security guards who are provided with and expected to carry firearms. The Court cited the principle that risks of associations and conditions inseparable from factory life, or in this case, employment life involving firearms, are risks of the employment. The Court emphasized that Suataron was not the aggressor and did not participate in the horseplay, as evidenced by his remark to Duazo not to joke with the gun. The Court further noted that the risk of handling firearms, including accidents during horseplay, was a peculiar risk to which security guards were exposed in a special degree due to the nature of their work. The Court also referenced the case of Leonbruno v. Champlain Silk Milles, which established that the non-participating victim of horseplay may recover compensation, as the risks of such associations are risks of the employment. On the issue of notorious negligence: The Court ruled that Romeo Suataron was not guilty of notorious negligence. The Court agreed with the decision appealed from, stating that allowing a co-employee to take hold of and play with his gun, if negligence at all, was merely simple negligence. Simple negligence does not deprive an employee of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court further reasoned that Suataron was entitled to assume that Duazo, as a fellow security guard familiar with firearms and their risks, would handle the gun with care, especially given their friendship. The Court concluded that the circumstances did not constitute notorious negligence that would bar compensation.
Main Doctrine
The death of an employee resulting from horseplay or larking among employees, even if involving firearms, is considered an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, provided the employee was not the aggressor and did not participate in the horseplay, and was not guilty of notorious negligence.