Vda. de Licardo v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jorge B. Licardo, an elevator mechanic-examiner for Otis Elevator Company, was employed since 1947. For several years prior to his death, he was assigned to service and repair elevators at the Philamlife Building, reporting directly to that location rather than the company's main office. This assignment occasionally required him to perform errands to secure necessary parts and equipment from the Otis Elevator Company office. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner, Juliana Vda. de Licardo, filed a claim for death compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act following the death of her husband, Jorge B. Licardo. The claim was initially dismissed by the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4. Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration, the case was forwarded to the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The Commission, through Associate Medical Commissioner Herminia Castelo Sotto, M.D., affirmed the dismissal. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission en banc, with one commissioner dissenting. 3. The Petition: This petition for review, filed under Rule 45, seeks to overturn the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The petitioner argues that the Commission erred in not considering the fatal accident as arising out of and in the course of employment, and in failing to recognize that the deceased was on a special errand for his employer. The petitioner also contends that the employer's provision of medical services constituted an admission of liability and that the employer waived its right to contest the claim by failing to file a reasonable controversion.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of Jorge B. Licardo arose out of and in the course of his employment. Whether the deceased was on a special duty or special errand for his employer at the time of the accident. Whether the respondent's act of extending medical services and hospitalization constituted an admission of liability. Whether the respondent waived its right to contest the compensability of the claim by failing to file a reasonable controversion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Commission and its resolution en banc. Otis Elevator Company was ordered to pay death compensation benefits, burial expenses, reimbursement for medical and hospital expenses, attorney's fees, and administrative fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death arose out of and in the course of employment: The Court held that the death of Jorge B. Licardo arose out of and in the course of his employment. The deceased had a reason to leave his residence early to perform an extra task for his employer, which was to get spare parts and equipment for his assigned work. This constituted a special messengerial work, not part of his daily routine. The Court emphasized that denying compensation to an employee who died while accomplishing something for the good of the service would be violative of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The fact that he had passed by the employer's office before did not negate the special character of this particular errand on the day of the accident. On the issue of whether the deceased was on a special duty or special errand: The Court found that the deceased was indeed on a special errand. His act of going to the employer's office to get spare parts and equipment was an extra task, different from his regular designation as an elevator mechanic-examiner. This errand was directly connected to his employment and was performed to ensure prompt and efficient service at his assigned work location. The Court reasoned that if not for this special errand, he would not have been at the accident site at that specific time, thus linking the errand directly to the fatal incident. On the issue of whether medical services constituted an admission of liability: The Court disagreed with the petitioner on this point, stating that the respondent's act of extending medical services and hospitalization was not an admission of liability. Instead, it was viewed as the employer performing its functions, possibly related to dispensing with the giving of notice of injury, rather than an acknowledgment of fault or responsibility for the accident itself. On the issue of waiver due to failure to file a reasonable controversion: The Court also disagreed with the petitioner on this assignment of error. It found that the respondent had, in fact, filed a seasonable controversion of the claim, as evidenced by the annexes attached to its answer to the petition. Therefore, the respondent had not waived its right to contest the compensability of the claim.
Main Doctrine
An employee injured while on a special errand for the employer, even if off-premises and outside regular working hours, is considered to have suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, making the claim compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.