Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14427. August 29, 1960. ]

BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GALICANO A. RIVERA and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for Petitioner.

Fernando M. Mangubat for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; INJURIES SUFFERED WHILE DRIVING ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT; COMPENSABLE. — Since the injury was received while the claimant was driving the bus, i.e., while performing the very duty he was employed to perform, the injury clearly arose "out of, and in the course" of employment and is compensable.

2. ID.; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACT; GENERAL RULE; EXCEPTION. — As a rule, findings of fact by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are final and conclusive (Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Nieves Baens Del Rosario, Et Al., L-13130, Oct. 31, 1959; St. Thomas Aquinas Academy v. WCC, Et Al., L-12297, April 22, 1955; NLU v. Sta. Ana, (102 Phil., 302; 54 Off. Gaz., [8] 2529) unless the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion, or said findings find absolutely no support in the evidence on record, or are unsupported by substantial or credible evidence (PAL v. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, Oct. 31, 1959; Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers’ Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959; 15c and Up Employees Association v. Dept. and Bazar Free Worker’ Union, L-9168, Oct. 18, 1956; NLU v. Dinglasan, (98 Phil., 609; 52 Off. Gaz., [4] 1933).

3. APPEAL AND ERROR; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; ASSESSMENT OF; BELONGS TO LOWER COURTS. — Assessing the credibility of witnesses is a task more properly vested in the lower courts, and findings thereon should not be disturbed.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


The Batangas Transportation Co. appeals by certiorari from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated June 27, 1958, holding said company liable for compensation to its employee Galicano Rivera for the loss of his left leg; and from the resolution of said Commission en banc, dated August 8, 1958, denying its motion for reconsideration.

As gleaned from his petition and his brief, petitioner predicates his appeal on the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) that the injury suffered by respondent Rivera did not arise out of his employment;

(2) that the injury was due to Rivera’s own "notorious negligence" ;

(3) that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission made conclusions which find "absolutely no support in the evidence on record" ;

(4) that petitioner is not liable under the law;

(5) that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in holding it liable.

Petitioner disputes the findings of fact made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, that on March 13, 1956, the appellant’s bus No. 502 was running from Batangas to Anilao, via Mabini at a moderate speed of about 20 kms. per hour following behind a jeepney; that when the bus driven by Rivera was about 4 meters from said jeepney, the latter suddenly stopped, without any warning, as it had no stoplight, and, as an act of emergency, to avoid hitting it, Rivera applied his brakes and swerved his bus to the left side of the road, in the process of which, his bus fell into a canal and turned turtle with its wheels in the air; that the curve where the accident occurred was not sharp, and could have been hardly noticed by Rivera from his running vehicle; that the testimony of Felipe Balita and Felisa Buenviaje, petitioner’s witnesses, are unreliable, for the reasons stated in the decision of the Hearing Examiner, affirmed by the Commissioner.

Petitioner claims that contrary to the above findings, Rivera had decided to overtake the jeepney when still several meters away from the place of the accident, and that while the jeepney was still 20 meters away from where it stopped, he was already trying to overtake it; that the bus driven by Rivera was running at about 50 kms per hour immediately prior to and at the time he was overtaking the jeepney; that despite entreaties of passengers for him to slow down, Rivera persisted in trying to overtake the jeepney; that Rivera tried to overtake the jeepney at a sharp curve, where a vehicle coming from the opposite direction cannot be seen until near the curve itself; that petitioner’s witnesses, particularly Felipe Balita and Felisa Buenviaje, are reliable, and the reasons given by the Commission in discrediting their testimony are erroneous, arbitrary, and without basis.

From the above factual premises averred by petitioner, it is asserted that the injury sustained by respondent Rivera did not arise "out of" his employment; that it was due to his own "notorious negligence" ; and that, therefore, petitioner is not liable under the law.

Under Section 46 of Act 3428, as amended, commonly known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, appeals from the rulings of the Compensation Commission are governed by the rules on appeals from decisions of the Court of Industrial Relations. As a general rule, findings of fact by the Industrial Court or the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are final and conclusive (Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Nieves Baens Del Rosario, Et Al., L-13130, Oct. 31, 1959; St. Thomas Aquinas Academy v. WCC, Et Al., L-12297, April 22, 1959; NLU v. Sta. Ana, 102 Phil., 302; 54 Off. Gaz. [8] 2529), unless the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion, or said findings find absolutely no support in the evidence on record, or are unsupported by substantial or credible evidence (PAL v. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958; Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers’ Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959; 15
Top of Page