G.R. No. L-20137




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-20137 March 31, 1964 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO AMIL and WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents. Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner. P. C. Villavieja and P. E. Villanueva for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Petition for certiorari for the review of an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission (RO4-WC Case No. 800) requiring the petitioner Republic of the Philippines, to pay P370.85 compensation to Francisco Amil, injured employee, plus P678.00 due to the National Orthopedic Hospital for expenses in treating the injury, and P14.00 as costs. The claim was originally filed with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor, Manila, where the case was tried and heard. The regional office found the injury compensable, and made an award in favor of the claimant. On review, its findings were affirmed, first by Commissioner De Leon and subsequently by the Commission en banc, but reducing the original award of the hearing officer by discarding the amounts charged by the private doctor who treated the claimant at the same time that he was being treated in the Orthopedic Hospital. The facts, as found by the Compensation Commission were as follows: Francisco Amil entered the services of the respondent June 1, 1955. He worked as a mechanic in the North Harbor Equipment Depot one of the branch offices of the Bureau Public Highways, at the rate of P30.00 a week. The bureau in 1959, thru the initiative of the Newsette, its official publication promoted a summer basketball tournament which was participated in by the "bona fide employees of the divisions or units of the Bureau whose headquarters or station is in the central office, Manila". The basketball league was under the control and supervision of a three-man committee which prescribed rules and regulations governing the games. In one of the games played, particularly on April 16, 1959 between the Equipment Division and the Auditing Division, Francisco Amil, a member of the first mentioned basketball quintet, sustained an injury of the left knee when his attempt to shoot the ball in the basket was foiled by one of the players of the opposing team. The game was played inside the respondent's premises during office hours. The following day he was brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital where he was given medical treatment, including physical therapy, three times a week until he was confined at the same hospital on August 18, 1959. He reported for work for five days after the accident, performing light duties, but he received daily wage up to August 17, 1959. Almost during the same period of his confinement at the National Orthopedic Hospital — from April 19 to August 15, 1959 — he was also treated by Dr. Agripino Malimban who charged him the amount of P895.00 for consultations, medicine, electro-massage and services. On August 19, 1959, a day after he entered the hospital, a surgery performed for the removal of a torn cartilege upon finding the physical therapy that was being applied on the claim ineffective. For this treatment, he incurred P678.00 which up now has not yet been paid by him. On July 5, 1960, claim was examined by Dr. Crisini R. Santos medical rating officer the Regional Office No. 4, she evaluated his disability at 15% loss of the use of the leg. On October 16, 1959, two days after he was discharged from the hospital, he returned to work. The Commission was of the opinion that the injury was incurred in the course of a game under the control supervision of a management committee, approved by head of the office, who had issued rules for the award the trophies and because the games "boosted the morale and increased the efficiency" of participating and witnessing employees. For this reason, it held the injury compensable. From the decision, the Government appealed, disputing both the compensability of the injury and amount of the award. The first point of the appellant is that the injury suffered by the claimant while playing basketball in the premises of the offices can not be considered as an injury that arose out of, and in the course of, the employment, and that it was error on the part of the Commission to so hold. The Commission found, and it is fairly deducible from the evidence, that in 1959 the Bureau of Public Highways, where the claimant was employed, promoted a tournament participated in by bona fide employees of the Manila units; that the games were managed by a three-man committee; that the Bureau Commissioner himself approved the championship game and the rules for the award of the trophies, so that the official character of the games (in one of which claimant was injured) appears clear. That the organization of the games was a matter of policy adopted by the Bureau officials also appears from the editorial in the January-February, 1959 issue of the Bureau's official publications, and from the fact that the games were played during office hours and in the premises of the Bureau.1äwphï1.ñët This is not a case of an employer passively permitting the use of space or equipment by his employee, on their own time and for their own purposes and amusement, but of an employer actively promoting competitive games during working hours, as a matter of policy, thereby voluntarily increasing the chances of injury to the employees, in order to improve labor relations, build up good will for common benefit, lessen friction, and avoid excessive labor turnover. Consequently, the participation in the games could legitimately be regarded as aim incident in claimant's employment, and his injury in the course thereof becomes compensable (Larson, Workmen's Compensation, section 22.00; Horowitz, Workmen's Compensation, 37 Phil. Law Journal [1962], p. 509; Jewel Tea Co. vs. Industrial Comm. [1955], 128 N.E. 2d. 699, reviewing cases; Ott vs. Ind. Comm. [1948], 82 N.E. 2d. 137, and cases cited; Thomas vs. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 6 ALR 1145; Turner vs. Willard [1956], 154 Fed. Supp. 352). Larson (Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. I, section 22.30) summarizes the prevailing rule thus: ... to be within the course of employment, the activity must either take place on the premises at a time closely related to working hours, or involve some element of compulsion or concurment benefit to the employer which marks it as an incident of employment. In the present case, as we have seen, the games were played in the office premises at 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.; and these were working hours on April 16, 1959, since only the people in the central office (and claimant was not one of them) observed the half-day session (t.s.n., p. 4, Rec., P. 104). The playing hours were set in a circular (Exhibit G, Rec. p. 96) approved by Commissioner Cuenca (whose signature appears on the circular), who was scheduled to award the trophies (Exhibit C). These circumstances refute the appellant's charge that the games were not authorized. Appellant next questions the award for 15% permanent disability (based on the examination of Dr. Crisini Santos of the Department of Labor) on the ground that claimant was discharged from the Orthopedic Hospital as cured. We see no irreconcilable conflict. The claimant was deemed cured in the Sense of requiring no further hospitalization or treatment, since the 15% loss of leg activity was permanent and could not be improved by further medication. We see no reversible error in the Commission's decision, and, therefore, the same is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Parades, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., took no part. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation