FACTS:

Teodoro Pablo and Rodolfo Galopez, had just finished overtime work at 5:00 pm and was going home.
At around 5:02 pm, while Pablo and Galopez were walking along the IDECO road, about20 meters from
the IDECO main gate, Pablo was shot by Martin Cordero. The motive for the crime was and still unknown
since Martin Cordero was himself killed before he could be tried for Pablo’s death.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Pablo’s death occurred in the course of employment and arising out of the
employment.

2. Whether the PROXIMITY RULE should apply in this case.

3. Whether the death of Pablo was an accident within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act.

HELD:

1. YES. Workmen’s compensation is granted if the injuries result from an accident which arises out of
and in the course of employment. Both the “arising” factor and the “course” factor must be present. If
one factor is weak and the other is strong, the injury is compensable but not where both factors are
weak. Ultimately, the question is whether the accident is work connected. The words “arising out of”
refer to the origin or cause of the accident and are descriptive of its character, while the words “in the
course” refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident takes place. The
presumption that the injury arises out of and in the course of employment prevails where the injury
occurs on the employer’s premises. While the IDECO does not own the private road, it cannot be denied
that it was using the same as the principal means of ingress and egress. The private road leads directly
to its main gate. Its right to use the road must then perforce proceed from either an easement of right
of way or a lease. Its right therefore is either a legal one or a contractual one. In either case the IDECO
should logically and properly be charged with security control of the road.

2. YES. The general rule in workmen’s compensation law known as going and coming rule provides
that in the absence of special circumstances, an employee injured in going to, or coming from his place
of work is excluded from the benefits of workmen’s compensation acts. The following are the
exceptions: a. Where the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the premises of his employer b.
Where the employee is about to enter or about to leave the premises of his employer by way of
exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress. Where the employee is charged while on his way to
or from his place of employment or at his home or during his employment, with some duty or special
errand connected with his employment. Where the employer, as an incident of the employment
provides the means of transportation to and from the place of employment. The second exception is
known as the “proximity rule.” The place where the employee was injured being immediately proximate
to his place of work, the accident in question must be deemed to have occurred within the zone of his
employment and therefore arose out of or in the course thereof.

3. YES. An “assault” although resulting from a deliberate act of the slayer, is considered an “accident”
within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act since the word accident is intended to indicate
that the act causing the injury shall be casual or unforeseen, an act for which the injured party is not
legally responsible.