8/12/2019 Gsis v CA & Alegre

1/1

GSIS v CA & Alegre

Facts:

Private respondent, Felonilla Alegre, who was married to SP02 Florencio Alegre, claims that her

husband was killed in relation to his duty when he was assigned in PNP station in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Said

deceased was driving his tricycle and ferrying passenger with in the vicinity of Imelda Commercial

Complex when he met SP04 Alejandro Tenorio Jr whom he had an altercation with by reason the tour of

duty the former was engaged with that led to verbal tussle between the two police officers which

transpire a fatal shooting that resulted to the death of the deceased. Private respondent has now filed a

claim for the death benefits she was entitled pursuant to PD 626 with petitioner, GSIS. GSIS denied such

claim and was further affirmed by the ECC when a subsequent appeal was taken by private respondent.

However CA reversed the decision of appellate courts stating that SP02 Alegres death was within and

has relation to work therefore compensable. A petition for review for certiorari was filed by the GSIS

and was given due course. Petitioner contends that the guidelines are laid and the following conditions

should be satisfied and in order for ones injury resulting to death or disability to be compensable. 1.

The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be; 2. The employee

must have been performing his official functions; 3. If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee

must have been executing an order for the employer. Which the deceased has not satisfied therefore no

death benefits may be given to private respondent.

Issue: WON SP02 Alegre was engaged in performance of duty

Held:

The court ruled in the negative. It was explained by the court that the 24 duty doctrine is not

applicable in the case at bar even if such doctrine applies to soldiers should as well apply to policemenby reason that the nature of their function are subjected to be summoned at any time and may be asked

by their superiors or by any distressed citizen to assist in maintaining the peace and security of the

community therefore private respondent should be denied the claims by reason that the matter SPO2

Alegre was attending to at the time he met his death, that of ferrying passengers for a fee, was

intrinsically private and unofficial in nature proceeding as it did from no particular directive or

permission of his superior officer which was the complete opposite in the cases of Hinoguin and Nitura.

Petition was hereby granted.