HINOGUIN vs ECC and GSIS

Petitioner Ciriaco Hinoguin was the father of Sgt. Lemich Hinoguin (deceased). Sgt
Hinoguin started his service in the AFP in 1974. From then he was holding the rank of
private class and in 1985 at the time of his death he was enlisted in the Phil Army as
Sergeant.

Before his death, Sgt. Hinoguin, Cpl Clavo and Dft. Alibuyog sought permission
from Capt. Besas to go in Aritao, Nueva Viscaya. Capt Besas orally granted the three and
allowed to take their issued fire arms despite Aritao was regarded as critical place
because of NPA’s presence. The three soldiers went to the house of Dft Alibuyog’s house
for a meal and dome drinks. They boarded a tricycle, Hinoguin and Clavo seating
themselves in the tricycle cab while Alibuyog occupied the seat behind the tricycle driver.
When they reached the poblacion, Alibuyog dismounted from the tricycle. Not noticing
that his rifle’s safety lever was on “semi-automatic,” he accidentally touched the trigger,
firing a single shot in the process and hitting Sgt. Hinoguin in the left lower abdomen.
Sgt. Hinoguin died a few days after the incident.

In the investigation conducted by the 14th Infantry Battalion, it was found that the
shooting of Sgt. Hinoguin was purely accidental in nature and that he died in the line of
duty. The Life of Duty Board of Officers recommended that all benefits due the legal
dependents of the late Sgt. Hinoguin be given.

However, when the father of the deceased made a claim from GSIS, the same was
denied on the ground that the deceased was not at his work place nor performing his duty
as a soldier of the Philippine Army at the time of his death. This denial was confirmed by
the ECC

Sometime in March 1986, petitioner filed his claim for compensation benefits under P.D.
No. 626 (as amended), claiming that the death of his son was work-connected and
therefore compensable. This was denied 6 by the GSIS on the ground that petitioner's
son was not at his work place nor performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army
at the time of his death.

ISSUE: WON the death of Sgt. y Hinoguin is compensable under the applicable statute
and regulations.
HELD: YES

The SC here considered the applicable statute. Since Sgt Hinoguin died on August
7, 1985, the applicable statute is to be found in Book Four, Title III of the Labor Code, as
amended. It may be noted at the outset that under Article 167 (g) of the Labor Code,
as amended and Section 4 (b) (1) of Rule I of the Amended (Implementing) Rules on
Employees' Compensation, the term "employee" includes a "member of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines." Rule XIII entitled "Death", of the Amended (Implementing)
Rules provides in part as follows:
SECTION 1. Grounds.

(a) For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must
be the result of an employment accident satisfying all of the following grounds:
(1) The employee must have been injured at the place work requires him to be;
(2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and

(3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order
for the employer.

The concept of a “work place” referred to in Ground 1, for instance, cannot always
be literally applied to a soldier on active duty status, as if he were a machine operator or
a worker in an assembly line in a factory or a clerk in a particular fixed office. Obviously,
a soldier must go where his company is stationed. In the instant case, Aritao, Nueva
Viscaya was not, of course, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija. Aritao being approximately 1-1/2
hours away from the latter by public transportation. But Sgt. Hinoguin, Cpl. Clavo and Dft.
Alibuyog had permission from their Commanding Officer to proceed to Aritao, and it
appears that a place which soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at cannot be
very different, legally speaking, from a place where they are required to go by their
commanding officer. They were not on vacation leave.

It may be noted in this connection that a soldier on active duty status is really on
24 hours a day official duty status and is subject to military discipline and military law 24
hours a day. He is subject to call and to the orders of his superior officers at all times, 7
days a week, except, of course, when he is on vacation leave status (which Sgt. Hinoguin
was not). Indeed, a soldier should be presumed to be on official duty unless he is shown
to have clearly and unequivocally put aside that status or condition temporarily by, e.g.,
going on an approved vacation leave.

Therefore, work-connected character of Sgt. Hinoguins injury and death was not
effectively precluded by the simple circumstance that he was on an overnight pass to go
to the home of Dft. Alibuyog, a soldier under his own command. Sgt. Hinoguin did not
effectively cease performing “official functions” because he was granted a pass. While
going to a fellow soldier’s home for a few hours for a meal and some drinks was not a
specific military duty, he was nonetheless in the course of performance of official
functions.

The GSIS is hereby DIRECTED to award all applicable benefits in respect of

the death of Sgt. Lemick G. Hinogiun, to petitioner.
 DE CHAVEZ VS. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND COURT
OF APPEALS

FACTS:

This is a case of claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
with Helen Genio de Chavez and Vida Chavez, as plaintiffs, and A. L. Ammen
Transportation Co., Inc., as defendant. Helen Genio de Chavez is the widow of Felipe
Chavez and Vida Chavez a child born from their wedlock.

In this case, there was an accident resulted in the death of Felipe Chavez, a
mechanic, while the latter was repairing the car of Gov. Triviño (not car of the company)
at the orders of managing agent Espirida. It was contended that it did not arise out of in
the course of the employment of Chavez because the repair was in furtherance of the
business of the defendant.

ISSUE: WON Chavez died in line of duty. YES

HELD:

A laborer is considered dying in line of duty while doing repair work

accepted by company manager in violation of company's regulations. A mechanic
employed by respondent land transportation company died while doing a repair job on a
private car, accepted in violation of its regulations that only the company's motor vehicles
may be repaired in its shop. The repair was done within the premises of the company and
death occurred therein. The repair work given by the manager to the mechanic was strictly
within the scope of the latter's employment and the heirs of the mechanic may recover
under the workmen's compensation act.

Therefore, although the repair attempted to be made on the Governor's car was in
technical violation of the rules of the Company, such violation was committed not by
Chavez but by Esperida himself, who from the standpoint of Chavez acted for the
company in ordering the repair, which order Chavez could not well ignore.
 BANDILA SHIPPING, INC., MR. REGINALDO A. OBEN, BANDILA SHIPPING,
INC. and FUYOH SHIPPING, INC., petitioners, vs. MARCOS C. ABALOS,
respondent.
FACTS:

This case is about a Filipino seafarer's claim for disability benefits from
cholecystolithiasis or gallstone that was discovered when he suffered excruciating pain
while working on board an ocean-going vessel, an illness that was not in the list of
compensable diseases listed in the standard seafarer's contract that he signed with the
vessel owner.

In this case there was a contract of employment entered by respondent

Marcos C. with petitioner Bandila Shipping as fourth engineer. Prior to embarkation,
Abalos underwent pre-employment medical examination and was found to be "fit for sea
service."

As the vessel headed towards Japan, respondent Abalos felt excruciating pain in
his stomach while he was on duty. After being examined at the International Clinic in
Nagoya, Japan, he was diagnosed to be suffering from "gallstone, acute cholecystitis,
and pancreatitis suspected." The attending physician found him unfit for duty and
recommended his repatriation.

NLRC: It is not one of those enumerated as compensable diseases in the Revised

Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
Board Ocean-Going Vessels that covered Abalos' employment. The NLRC denied him
disability benefits and sickness allowance for this reason.

CA: Abalos' diet or sustenance on board the vessel had presumably caused or
contributed to his illness for he had no choice but eat ship food. Consequently, although
his gallstone is not a compensable illness under his employment contract, it can be said
that his illness was either work-related or reasonably connected with his work.

ISSUE: WON cholecystolithiasis or gallstone is compensable and, thus, entitles

him to disability benefits and sickness allowance.
HELD: NO

Since cholecystolithiasis or gallstone has been excluded as a compensable

illness under the applicable standard contract for Filipino seafarers that binds both
respondent Abalos and the vessel's foreign owner, it was an error for the CA to treat
Abalos' illness as "work-related" and, therefore, compensable. The standard contract
precisely did not consider gallstone as compensable illness because the parties agreed,
presumably based on medical science, that such affliction is not caused by working on
board ocean-going vessels.
 Therefore, Respondent Marco Abalos is not disability benefits and sickness
allowance for this reason.