VALERIANO v.

ECC
96 SCRA 260

FACTS:

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

The ECC and CA sustained the system (GSIS), reasoning that the injury resulted not from an
accident arising out of and in the course of employment nor was it work-connected.

ISSUES:

1. WON petitioner's injuries are work-connected. (NO)

2. WON petitioner fireman, like soldiers, can be presumed to be on 24-hour duty. (NO)

RULING:

1. Valeriano’s injuries are not work-connected.

Disability benefits are granted an employee who sustains an injury or contracts a sickness
resulting in temporary total, permanent total, or permanent partial, disability. For the
injury and the resulting disability to be compensable, they must have necessarily resulted
from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

For injury to be compensable, the standard of "work connection" must be substantially

satisfied. The injury and the resulting disability sustained by reason of employment are
compensable regardless of the place where the injured occurred, if it can be proven that at
the time of the injury, the employee was acting within the purview of his or her
employment and performing an act reasonably necessary or incidental thereto.

Petitioner Valeriano was not able to demonstrate solidly how his job as a firetruck driver
was related to the injuries he had suffered. That he sustained the injuries after pursuing a
purely personal and social function - having dinner with some friends - is clear from the
records of the case. His injuries were not acquired at his work place; nor were they
sustained while he was performing an act within the scope of his employment or in pursuit
of an order of his superior.
2. 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.

Petition dismissed.