Title
Nitura vs. Employees' Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. 89217
Decision Date
Sep 4, 1991
A soldier's fatal fall while returning to camp after checking personnel at a dance party was ruled compensable, as his actions were work-connected and not barred by alleged intoxication or negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 89217)

Factual Background

Pfc. Regino S. Nitura, assigned to the "D" Company, 44th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, was engaged in military service when he died in an accident on March 3, 1986. He had been instructed by his Battalion Commander to check on personnel attending a dance party in Barangay San Jose, Dipolog City. On his return to camp, he fell from a hanging wooden bridge, sustaining injuries that led to his death, as indicated in his death certificate, which cited "cardio-respiratory arrest, shock, traumatic due to hemorrhage, intracranial due to severe concussion of the brain due to accidental fall."

Initial Claims and Denial

Following the death of her son, Juanita Nitura filed a claim for compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626, but GSIS denied this claim on the grounds that Pfc. Nitura was not within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, as he was returning from a dance party. The GSIS’s denial was confirmed upon reconsideration, leading to an appeal to the ECC.

ECC's Rationale for Denial

The ECC upheld the GSIS’s denial, stating that Pfc. Nitura was not at his place of work nor engaged in an official function related to his duties at the time of the accident. They emphasized that attending the dance party was not considered part of his duties and cited that if it were deemed so, his intoxicated state at the time constituted "notorious negligence," as crossing the bridge while under the influence was seen as reckless behavior.

Legal Framework and Issues

The central issue in this case revolves around whether Pfc. Nitura's death is compensable under the relevant statutes and regulations. The ECC held that the requirements for compensability—namely, the injury must result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment—had not been met, due to his off-duty activity and alleged negligence.

Judicial Reasoning and Interpretation

The Court highlighted that the Employees’ Compensation Act is designed to provide support to workers. It emphasized a liberal interpretation favoring employees in cases of compensability. The Court took into account that soldiers on active duty are considered to be performing official functions continuously and argued that Pfc. Nitura was under instruction from a superior officer at the time of the accident, rendering his actions work-related.

Consideration of Intoxication and Negligence

The Court addressed the respondents’ claims of intoxication, asserting that mere consumption of alcohol does not automatically excuse the injury from compensability unless it is proven that the intoxication was

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.