Valeriano vs.

ECC and GSIS, June 8, 2000 GR 136200

FACTS:

Celestino Valeriano was employed as a firetruck driver. On the evening of July 3, 1985, after
having dinner with a friend, Valeriano met an accident and was severely injured when the
vehicle he was on collided with another. Valeriano claimed for benefits from the GSIS which the
latter denied for being non-compensable.

FIRST ARGUMENT of GSIS DENYING VALERIANO REQUEST:

The injuries sustained by the petioner does not arise or result from the nature of his work.

The petioner then filed a motion for reconsideration with GSIS, and the latter denied. Petitioner
then interposed an appeal to the ECC. The ECC denied the petitioners APPEAL.

the argument of ECC:

under the present compensation law, injury and the resulting disability or death is
compensable if the injury resulted from an accident "arising out of" and "in the course of
employment". it means the injury is sustained while the employee is in the (1)performace of
his official duty,(2) that the injury is sustained at the place where his work requires him to be,
(3) and if the injury is sustained elsewhere, that the employee is executing an order for the
empoyer.

afer the deniel of ECC the petitioner went to CA, THE CA AFFIRMED THE DECISION

the argument of the Petioner in the CA:

The nature of his work is "on-call" or simply to report for work anytime in case there is fire, or
that his position is akin to that of a military man. (petitoner cited the doctrine provided in the
case of hinoguin and niture)

Still the CA affirmed the decision of ECC. and in addition CA argued that while the petitioner
inccured the said injuries he was already dismissed form his regular 8 hours daily work. He went
now to the Supreme Court

issue:

Whether petitioner's injuries are wore connected?

whether petitioner's nature of work is akin to soldiers, that can be presumed to be on 24 hour
duty?
HELD:

1. No,there are 2 elements:

1"arising out or"

2"in the course of employment"

The first one, refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character,
while the second one, "in the course of of refer to time, place and circumstances under which
the accident takes place. as a matter of general propostion, an unjury or accident is said to arise
in the course of emplyment when it takes place within the period of the emplyment, at a place
whre the employee may reasonably be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing
something incidental thereto.

Petitioner was not able to demonstrate solidy how his job as a firetruck driver was related to the
injuries he had suffered.

2. second issue

Valeriano’s contention, citing the Hinoguin and Nitura cases, that the 24-hour doctrine be
applied to his case since the exigency of his job demand it to be so was held untenable by the
Court. The Court did not find any reasonable connection between his injuries and his work as a
firetruck driver. Applying the principle laid down in the Alegre case, the 24-hour doctrine is not
meant to embrace all acts and circumstances of an employee though he be on active “on call”
duty. Valeriano was neither at his assigned work place nor in pursuit of the orders of his
superiors when he met the accident. He was also not doing an act within his duty and authority
as a firetruck driver, or any other act of such nature, at the time he sustained his injuries. In fact,
he was pursuing a purely personal and social function when the accident happened. The
accident not work-connected was, therefore, non-compensable.