VDA. DE SANTIAGO v.

REYES
February 29, 1960 | Labrador, J. | Review by certiorari | The Law-Fact Distinction
SUMMARY: Petitioners filed a claim for compensation due to the death of
Victoriano Santiago, a jeepney driver with a prescribed route within Manila and the
suburbs, who was murdered and whose body was found in Quezon. The Workmens
Compensation Commission found that his death did not arise out of was not
occasioned in the course his employment since he voluntarily went out of his route,
thereby violating public service rules. SC held that the employer failed to present
evidence in order to rebut the presumption in favor of the employee.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 43 of the Workmans Compensation Act establishes a
presumption that the deceased died while in the course of his employment.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the other party to prove, based on substantial
evidence, otherwise.
FACTS:
1. Victoriano Santiago was the driver of an autocalesa (jeepney) owned by Angela
Reyes. He was last seen operating said jeepney at 9pm of Sept. 26, 1955. His
body was found the morning after in Tayabas, Quezon, obviously a victim of
murder by persons at large and whose identities were not known. It was
submitted that respondent gave specific instructions to follow the route
prescribed by the Public Service Commission (within Manila and suburbs).
2. Petitioners filed a claim for compensation before the Workmens Compensation
Commission. In deciding whether Santiagos death arose out of or was
occasioned in the course of his employment, 2 members of the Commission
found that the deceased drivers act of deviating from the route prescribed for
his observance constituted a positive factor in bringing about his own demise,
and found the deceased to have willfully violated public service rules and
regulations, hence, the majority denied the claim.
3. Assoc. Commissioner del Rosario dissented, stating that there are legal
presumptions in favor of the employee that (a) the claim comes within the
provisions of the compensation law, and that (b) the injury is not occasioned
by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or
death of himself or of another. These presumptions were also established in
Sec. 42 of the Workmens Compensation Act. Thus, the burden of proof shifts

to the employer who must present substantial evidence in order to overcome the
presumptions, which, in this case, was not presented.
ISSUE/S: WoN the death of the deceased arose out of or was occasioned in the
course of his employment YES.
HELD/RULING: Decision SET ASIDE. Respondent ordered to pay the
compensation due the heirs under the law.
RATIO:
1. The Majoritys reasoning violates the presumption laid down in Sec. 69, par.
(q), Rule 123 of the RoC: That the ordinary course of business has been
followed. Since there is no question that the deceased, immediately before
leaving Manila, was engaged in his employment, then the presumption is that
he performed his duties legally and in accordance with the rules and regulations
because this was his regular obligation. As such, it was incumbent upon the
respondent to prove that he did otherwise, or to prove that he failed to comply
with the regulations, that is, that the deceased voluntarily went out of his route
and drove his jeepney towards the province of Quezon. They failed to do so.
There being no such evidence submitted by the respondent, we must conclude
that he was forced by the circumstances beyond his will to go outside of his
route (threats of the malefactors who killed him).
2. The Court cited Batangas Transportation Co. v. Josefina de Rivera, et. al,
wherein the bus driver was held to have died in the course of his employment
even if there were indications that there was personal animosity between the
assailant and the victim which may have caused the assault. Since the deceased
died while driving the bus, then his death must have been due to his
employment. The present case is stronger that the above-cited case, since there
are no such indications present in this case.
3. The Court ruled that the decision of the majority which has been appealed from
is not in consonance with the law and the express provision of Section 43 of the
Workmen's Compensation Law; and that by reason of such express provision of
the law, it held that Victoriano Santiago died by reason of and in the course of
his employment and consequently his heirs are entitled to receive the
compensation provided for by law in such cases.