Sierbo v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesus Sierbo, employed as Chief Steward by private respondent Negros Navigation Co., Inc., was involved in an altercation with Second Mate Hernani Magbanua. The incident began with Magbanua reprimanding Sierbo for being late and not in uniform. Words were exchanged, and both sustained gunshot injuries. Magbanua died from his injuries. Sierbo also sustained injuries. Procedural History: The Acting Referee of the Workmen's Compensation Unit awarded compensation to Sierbo. However, the Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed this decision on appeal, absolving the employer of liability. The Commission found Sierbo to be the unlawful aggressor and thus not entitled to compensation. The Petition: Sierbo filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the Commission's decision and raising issues regarding who was the aggressor, Sierbo's entitlement to compensation, and whether the Commission acted in accordance with facts and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Who was the unlawful aggressor in the incident of June 6, 1971? Is petitioner Sierbo entitled to compensation for the injuries he sustained under the factual circumstances? Did the Workmen's Compensation Commission err in reversing the decision of the Acting Referee?
Ruling
The decision of the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission is hereby AFFIRMED. The employer, Negros Navigation Co., Inc., is absolved from liability for compensation to petitioner Jesus Sierbo.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of who was the unlawful aggressor: The Court affirmed the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission that petitioner Sierbo was the unlawful aggressor. The Commission's conclusion was based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of witness Romeo Ampig, who contradicted Sierbo's claim that Magbanua hit him with a Coca-Cola bottle. Ampig testified that Sierbo pulled out a gun and fired, and that Magbanua was not holding a bottle. The Court found Sierbo's allegations of self-defense to be unworthy of belief, especially considering the autopsy findings and the testimony of other witnesses who corroborated the employer's version of the incident. The Court emphasized that shooting a person constitutes unlawful aggression, and Sierbo's claim of prior attack by Magbanua was not substantiated by credible evidence. On the issue of Sierbo's entitlement to compensation: The Court ruled that Sierbo was not entitled to compensation. Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that compensation shall not be allowed for injuries caused by the voluntary intent of the employee to inflict such injury upon himself or another person. The Court reasoned that the beneficent provisions of the law were not intended to cover situations where an employee initiates an unlawful aggression and sustains injuries as a consequence. Sierbo, by initiating the shooting of Magbanua, acted with willful and felonious intent, thereby forfeiting his right to compensation. His injuries were a direct result of his own unlawful act. On whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in reversing the Acting Referee's decision: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The Court reiterated the rule that findings of fact by the Commission are final and conclusive unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence, particularly the testimony of witness Romeo Ampig, which directly contradicted Sierbo's narrative. The Court also noted that Sierbo's claim of being hit on the head with a bottle was medically improbable given the location of his injuries and the circumstances described. Therefore, the Commission's reversal of the Acting Referee's decision was deemed proper and in accordance with established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
An employee who initiates unlawful aggression against another, resulting in injury to himself during the ensuing struggle, is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as his injuries are deemed to have been caused by his own willful intent to inflict injury upon another.