Ollero v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mercedes Ollero, a teacher employed by the Central Luzon Mission of Seventh Day Adventists (SDA Mission), was assigned to teach at its Elementary School in Galas, Quezon City, for the school year 1973-1974. Her residence was in Baesa, Caloocan City, and the employer shouldered 75% of her transportation expenses due to the distance. On December 11, 1973, after her afternoon classes, Ollero boarded a jeepney from Galas to go home. While alighting at the junction of Quezon Boulevard Extension and Roxas District to transfer to another vehicle, she was bumped by a speeding car, sustaining a fracture of her right femur and tibia. As a result, she was unable to teach from December 12, 1973, to October 24, 1974, and suffered partial loss of the use of her right leg. Procedural History: On February 22, 1974, Ollero filed a notice of injury and claim for compensation against the SDA Mission. The employer's report was filed on August 7, 1974, with the answer to whether the claim was controverted left blank, but stating the injury occurred in her regular occupation. An award was issued on November 14, 1974, ordering the employer to pay P6,000.00 for temporary total and permanent partial disability, plus P61.00 as administrative fee. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration on November 27, 1974, seeking to reinstate its right to controvert, arguing the accident was not compensable as it occurred off-premises and far from work. This motion was denied. The Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) En Banc set aside the award on September 30, 1975, holding that off-premises injuries occurring on a public highway, without special circumstances related to employment, are generally not compensable. The Petition: Aggrieved, Ollero filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the vehicular accident that befell the petitioner while commuting home from work is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether the employer renounced its right to controvert the claim due to failure to file the required notice and report within the prescribed period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Commission and revived the hearing officer's award. The employer was ordered to pay the petitioner P6,000.00 for disability, reimburse medical expenses, provide necessary services for recovery, and pay attorney's fees. The administrative fee of P61.00 was also reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of the off-premises injury: The Court held that the injury sustained by Mercedes Ollero is compensable. While the general rule excludes injuries sustained while going to or coming from work (the "going and coming" rule or "off-premises" rule), this rule admits exceptions. In the case of Ollero, special circumstances existed that made the injury compensable. The employer agreed to shoulder 75% of her transportation expenses due to the distance between her residence and the assigned school, thereby making her travel home a necessary incident to her employment. The Court reiterated the principle that for an injury to be compensable, it is not necessary for the cause to have occurred within the place of employment, as long as the worker acted within the scope of employment and performed an act reasonably necessary or incidental thereto. The Court cited previous rulings, including Bael vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, which emphasized that the nature of the work and time required after class hours can create special circumstances qualifying heirs to benefits. On the employer's failure to controvert the claim: The Court affirmed the referee's outright award, citing the petitioner's non-controversion of the claim. The employer was aware of the accident on December 12, 1973, as Ollero could not resume teaching. However, the school failed to file the required notice of accident within the period prescribed by Section 37 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Furthermore, the employer's report filed on August 7, 1974, almost eight months after the accident, did not controvert the claim. Consequently, the employer renounced its right to controvert the claim. The employer's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on November 27, 1974, was deemed too late and was filed without alleging any justifiable reason for the delay, such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Therefore, the claim was deemed admitted as compensable.
Main Doctrine
An injury sustained by an employee while commuting from work is compensable if there are special circumstances related to the employment, such as the employer shouldering a portion of the transportation expenses, making the travel a necessary incident to the employment. Furthermore, failure to timely controvert a claim constitutes a renunciation of the right to dispute its compensability.