PRIMER ON COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIANN REFORM LAW

(Rep. Act No. 6657)--

PART ONE

Question No. 1: Give the Constitutional provisions supporting the

Government’s agrarian reform program.

Answer: Article II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies:

Section 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and
free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living
and an improved quality of life for all.

Article III, Bill of Rights:

Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.

Article X, Local Government

Section 7: Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share

in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national
wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law,
including sharing the same to the inhabitants by way of direct
benefits.

Article XII, National Economy and Patrimony:

Section 1: xxx The State shall promote industrialization and full

employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian
reform, through the industries that make full and efficient use of
human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the state shall protect
Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices. Xxx

Article XIII, Social justice and Human Rights: Agrarian and

Natural Resources Reform

Section 4: The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform

program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or,
in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits
thereof. To this end, the state shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as Congress may prescribed, Taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
retention limits, the State shall respect the rights of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary
land-sharing.

Section 5: The State shall recognize the rights of farmers,

farmworkers, and land owners, as well as cooperatives, and other
independent farmers, organizations to participate in the planning,
organization, and management of the program, and shall provide
support to agriculture through appropriate technology and
research, and adequate financial, production, marketing and other
support services.

Section6: The state shall apply the principles of agrarian reform and
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the
disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands
of the public domain under leased or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small
settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral
lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.

Section 8: The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest

the proceeds to the agrarian reform program to promote
industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public
sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their
lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.

Article XIII, Transitory Provisions:

Section 2: at the earliest possible time, the government shall

expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined
by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform
program.

Question No 2: Briefly discuss the history of agrarian legislations

in the Philippines.

Answer: The present agrarian reform program has been actually a

product of more than 90 years of legislative efforts of various
regimes/administrations. Early attempts of agrarian reform may be
said to have started during the short-lived (first) republic of Pres.
Emilio Aguinaldo way back 1897. Since then, every
regime/administration presented their respective agrarian program
amidst “odds” prevailing in their respective time.

The martial law rule of Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos had been

characterized by massive agrarian legislations by presidential
decrees. They were, of course, unprecedented and new.
 The present regime ventures on the comprehensive agrarian
program as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. Another
controversial move affecting large sectors of the populace.
The agrarian legislations in the Philippines may be divided into
the following headings:

(1.) Legislation during the Revolution and American Periods (1896-

1933);
(2.) Legislation during the Commonwealth Period (1935-1946);
(3.) Legislation during the Third Republic (1946-1972);
(4.) Legislation during the Martial Law Years (1972-1981);
(5.) Legislation during the Fourth Republic (1981-1986);and
(6.) Legislation of the New [Fifth] Republic (1986-present).

Question No. 3: Give other laws pertaining to the Agrarian reform

program of the government.

Answer: The following laws deals with the agrarian reform program
of the government:

1.Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 (Rep. Act No. 1199)

2.Land Reform Act (Rep. Act No. 1400)
3.An Act Creating the Court of Agrarian Relations (Rep. Act No.
1267)
4.The Agricultural Land Reform Code (Rep. Act No. 3844)
5.Code of Agrarian Reforms (Rep. Act No. 6389)
6.Agrarian Reform Special Fund Act (Rep. Act No. 6390)
7. P.D. No. 2 (Declaring Entire Philippines as Land Reform Area)
8. P.D. No. 27 (Decreeing Emancipation of Tenants)

Question No. 4: Briefly discuss the agrarian movement during the

Revolutionary and American Periods.

Answer: Briefly during the following regimes-

(1.) Revolutionary Period- No particular legislation was enacted
during this period. However, to rally the people to the revolution,
the leaders of the revolution of 1896 made a promise “to restore the
farmer’s lands/properties.”

This promise was contained in the “Manifesto” issued by the

Revolutionary Junta based in (Hong Kong). The major program of
the first Republic under Pres. Aguinaldo was the intended
“confiscation of the friar’s lands”; however, the Treaty of Paris and
the eventual fall of the First Republic did not materialize the plan of
confiscation.

(2.) The American Regime (1898-1935). - To solve the deteriorating

agrarian situation at that time, the Americans passed the following
legislative acts, to wit:

(a) Philippine Bill of 1902 or otherwise known as the “Public

Land Act: (Act No. 41) provided for the regulation and the disposal
of public lands subject to specific conditions [i.e., 24 for individuals
and 1,024 for private corporations];

(b) Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act of 1902) - provided for
the systematic registration of land titles (Torrens Title System);
(c) Public Land Act of 1903- The homestead system (i.e. issuance
of free patents) was introduced. In 1903 Governor Taft negotiated
with Pope Leo XIII for the acquisition of 161,600 hectares of friar
lands for $7,239,748.66.
(d) The Cadastral Survey of 1910- a system was adopted to speed
up the issuance of Torrens titles by surveying the whole
municipality and the result were to be presented to the land
registration court in the groups of 1,000.
 (e) Colonies- establishment of agricultural colonies in 1913 to
encourage the farmers to immigrate to unpopulated lands/areas.

(f) Rice Share Tenancy Act [Feb. 27, 1933]- to regulate the
relationship between landowners and tenants of the rice lands
(g) Tenancy Act of 1933- to regulate the relationship between
the tenants and landowners of the sugar cane fields.

Art. 7, Labor Code, Agrarian Reforms

The measures aforestated, however, have failed to institute a

successful agrarian program as shown by the following facts: many
friar lands remain in the possession of the religious corporations;
the tenancy doubled; formation of militant peasants organizations
[i.e. Katipunan Pambansa ng mga Mambubukid ng Pilipinas in
1934]; peasants’ uprising and the prevalence of the “uneven
distribution of lands”.

Question No. 5: What were the agrarian legislations passed and

their effects during the Commonwealth Period (1935-1946).

Answer: Briefly-
(1) Legislations- Pres. Quezon implementing the “social justice
clause” of the 1935 Constitution (Sec.5, Art. III) succeeded in
passing the following legislations relating to agrarian reform:

(a) Com. Act No. 178- an offshoot legislation of Sakdal Rebellion

[1935] which required written contract between landowners and
tenants.
(b) Com Act No. 461- empowering the purchase of large
haciendas for subdivision into small lots to be sold to tenants on easy
terms and methods of dismissing tenants which required approval
by Tenancy Division of the Justice Department.
 (c) Com Act No. 608- establishment of government corporations
like the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) to assist the
farmers and provide job opportunities.

(2) Effects.- The above-mentioned legislations were not so successful

during the Commonwealth Period for two obvious reasons:
First, while the legislation were intended to benefit the tenants,
the interest of the landlords still prevailed, inasmuch as, the
Philippine Legislature at that time was dominated by the “landed”
legislators.

Second, the expropriations and redistribution to small farmers

of the formerly big estates were taken advantage by the
influential/moneyed individuals through the employment of
“dummies”

Question No. 6: Discuss the development of agrarian legislations

during the Third Republic (1946-1972).

Answer: Briefly-

(1) Postwar Legislations- Pres. Manuel Roxas to counteract the

subversive/rebellious movement of the Hukbong Mapapalaya ng
Pilipinas Laban sa Hapon (Hukbalahap) and to save the
deteriorating situation, worked for the enactment of Rep. Act No.
34(1946). This law was passed by the First Congress on September
30, 1946 and known as “70/30%” Act provided that the tenant,
depending on his contribution in terms of draft animals, cost of
transplanting and fertilizer, was to receive as much as 70% of the
harvest while the owner was to be left with 30%. Despite the good
intention of this legislation, it failed to satisfy the tenants as that
point of time.
(2) Other Legislations- Laws passed by the Congress of the
Philippines to solve land problem during the Third Republic were
the following, among others:
(a) The organization of the Rice and Corn Production
Administration (RCPA) on March 24, 2949 implementing
resettlement program (i.e. reservation in Bulacan in Cotabato,
Maramag-Wao in Bukidnon and Panasan-Aborlan in Palawan) of
the Republic.

(b) Pres. Elpidio Quirino issued Executive Order No. 355

creating the Land Settlement and Development Corporation
[LASEDECO] to quell the HUK rebellion.

(c) LASEDECO was abolished by Pres. Magsaysay through R.A.

No. 1160 which created the National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) and this body resettled
20,500 settler families at the cost of P44.9 million.
(d) Approval by Pres. Magsaysay on August 30, 1954 of the
Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 (Act No. 1199 as amended by
Rep.Act No. 2263) regulating tenancy in general, fixing rental on
tenanted lands and defining the rights and duties of both
landowners and tenants.
gsaysay on Sept. 9, 1955 of the land Reform Act of 1955 (Rep. Act
No. 1400) establishing the Land Tenure Administration for
acquisition and redistribution of private agricultural lands.

(f) Approval by Pres. Diosdado Macapagal on August 8, 1963 of

the Agricultural Land Reform Code [Rep. Act No. 3844] which
provided for the abolition of tenancy and prescribed a program
transforming the tenants to lessees and in course into landowners.

(g) The official pledge of Pres. Marcos on January 24, 1965 to

continue the implementation of land reform program.
 (2) Effects- The implementation of the Agricultural Land
Reform Code was hindered by two factors: (a) the lack of
necessary funds to finance its successful implementation and (b) the
absence of a comprehensive administrative machinery.

Question No. 7: Development of agrarian legislations during Martial

Law Years (1972-1986), Discussed.

Answer: Discussing the movement during the referred period:

(1) Pre-Martial Law Legislations- One year before the Philippines

was placed under Martial Law, Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos
approved two amendatory acts to Pres. Macapagal’s Agricultural
Land Reform Code (1963).
(a) Code of Agrarian Reform (RA No. 6398)- approved on
Sept. 10, 1971 and provided for the reorganization of the
administrative machinery implementing agrarian reform into a
single line and comprehensive department- the Department of
Agrarian Reform.

(b) AGRARIAN REFORM SPECIAL ACCOUNT (RA No.

6398)- which provides a source of additional appropriation of P50
million every year to finance agrarian operations.

(2) Agrarian Reforms by Presidential Decrees.- Following the

placement of the Philippines under Martial Law, the nation was
governed by presidential decrees. Foremost of the decrees relating to
agrarian reform are the following:

(a) PD No. 2 (Sept. 26, 1972)- which proclaimed the entire country as
a land reform area and with the objectives of “achieving dignified
existence for the small farmers free from the pernicious institutional
restraints and practices which are retarded agricultural growth.”
(b) PD No. 27 (Oct. 21, 1972)- emancipated the tenants from the
bondage of the soil by declaring them under special conditions,
owners of the land they till.

(c) Other Presidential Decrees passed between the period of 1972 to

1981-i.e., Pres. Decree .Nos. 57, 84, 85, 152, 239, 262, 266, 267, 315,
316, 409, 435, 457, 472, 517, 544, 583, 717, 1036, 1066, 1171, 1197,
4163, etc.

Question No. 8: Briefly discuss the progress and development of the

agrarian reform during the New (Fifth) Republic.
Answer: The development and movement are:

(1) CARP.- The agrarian reform program in the Philippines has

been reinforced by Pres. Corazon C. Aquino when she issued:

(a) PROCLAMATION NO. 131- Instituting a Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Program;

(b) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 229 (July 22, 1987)- providing the
mechanism for implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform.

(c) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228 (July 15, 1987)- declaring full
land ownership to qualified farmer beneficiaries covered by PD No.
27; determining and providing for the manner of payment by the
farmer beneficiary and mode of compensation to the landowner.

(2) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 129-A (July 15, 1987)-

reorganization Act of the Department of Agrarian Reform; and

(3) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292 (July 25, 1987)- Administrative

Code of 1987
Congress of the Philippines is mandated by the Constitution and by
Executive Order No. 229 to fix the priorities and retention limits and
prescribed guidelines set forth by said order.
Accordingly, Congress of the Philippines has enacted the following
important legislations, to wit:

(a) REP. ACT NO. 6657 (June 10, 1988)- The Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988:
(b) REP. ACT NO. 7160- The Local Government Code of 1992,
effective January 1, 1992; and
(c) REP. ACT No. 7607 (June 4, 1992)- An Act Providing for the
Magna Carta of Small Farmers.

Question No. 9: What is agrarian reform compared to land reform?

Answer: Agrarian reform refers to the integrated set of measures

designed to improve not only the productivity but also the income
levels of the agrarian sector (mostly farmers) and thus reduce if not
eliminate poverty in the countryside.

Land reform refers to the scientific well-coordinated progress

to changes a countryside’s agricultural system so that the tenants,
landlords and other members of the farming sector can make use of
the maximum of their resources for their own benefit and for the
country, as well.

Question No. 10: Which is wider in concept agrarian reform or land

reform?
Answer: The term agrarian reform is considered to be a much wider
concept than land reform because the former is- “comprising all
aspects of institutional development and covering not only land
reform (i.e., the reform tenure, production and supporting services
structure) but also the reform and development of a complimentary
institutional framework, and of related institutions such as the local
government, public administration and rural educational and social
welfare institutions. A land reform program is directed toward
redistribution of wealth, opportunity and power, as manifested in
the ownership and control of the land.
Question No. 11: Discuss briefly at least four (4) of the main
objectives of agrarian reform.

Answer: The four common objectives of agrarian reform are:

(1)To abolish feudal forms which, in practice means

overthrowing the landlord class controlling the land.
(2) To free the peasants and make them active citizens by ending
their subjugation to and dependence on exploiters;
(3) To accelerate economic development especially agricultural
progress; and
(4) To encourage more intensive cultivation, that is application of
more labor and other resources to a given unit of land.

Question No. 12: What are the two (2) possible worldwide
approaches to tenancy reforms? Explain and discuss.

Answer: The two (2) possible approaches worldwide to tenancy

reforms may either be the:

(1)Regulatory approach; or

(2)Abolition approach.

The aim of regulatory approach is to mitigate the exploitive

features arising out of the tenant’s lack of bargaining power due to
increasing pressure on land. The preconditions the success of this
approach are the following among others:
 (1) Abolition of crop sharing and conversion of all rentals into
fixed produced rents or cash rents [known as the principle of “fair
rents”];
(2) Conferment of permanent and heritable rights on all tenants
like right to loans, right to compensation for land improvement in
case of “eviction”: [known as the ‘principle of security of tenure”];
(3) Restriction on the resumption on land by landowners for
personal cultivation [i.e., security of tenure];
(4) Prohibition of voluntary surrender by tenants except in favor
of the State or its authorized agencies, and
(5) Break-up of landlord-tenant nexus by interposing between
them

The abolition approach is known as the “land-to-tiller program”

approach which has been successfully adopted in India and Japan.
In adopting this approach, two possible courses of action could be
considered, namely:

(1) The State could acquire ownership on payment of a fair

compensation and transfers it to tenants recovering from them the
amount due or compensation is suitable installments; or

(2) Alternately, the law could provide for transfer of ownership

to tenants who would be required to pay compensation directly to
the owner in suitable installments with the government intervening
only when a tenant failed to pay an installment [JOINT FO-ECPE-
ILO Seminar].

Question No 12: Of the two approaches on tenancy reforms, to

which direction is the Philippine government taking?

Answer: The Land Reform Code (Rep. Act No. 3844) of former
Pres. Diosdado Macapagal and the amendatory code-Code of
Agrarian Reforms (Rep. Act. No. 6389) of Pres. Ferdinand Marcos
have shown characteristics of the “regulatory approach” to tenancy
reforms.

On the other hand, the “land-to-tiller program” –PD No. 27 of

Pres. Marcos launched during the initial stage of the new
Society/Marshall Law Days manifested adherence to the second
approach- the abolition approach.

The Comprehensive Reform Program [Executive Order No.

229, July 22,1987] and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
[Rep. Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988] during the incumbency of Pres.
Corazon C. Aquino is taking a similar step/direction –the abolition
approach.

Question No. 13: Give the general and specific coverage of the
comprehensive agrarian reform law (Rep. Act No. 6657)

Answer: In general it includes, regardless of tenurial arrangements

and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands
as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and E. O. No. 229, including
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

It specifically includes the following:

1.All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain

devoted to or suitable for agriculture;

2.All lands of the public domain in excess to the specific limits as

determined by congress;

3.All other lands owned by the government devoted to or

suitable for agriculture; and

4.All private lands for agriculture regardless of the agricultural

products raised or that can be raised thereon. (Sec. 4 CARL)
Question No. 14: What are the lands that are excluded in the
application of the CARL?

Answer: Excluded from the application of CARL are lands actually,

directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for the
following purposes:

1.for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation;

2.for fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;
3.for watersheds and mangroves;
4.for national defense;
5.for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm
stations operated by public or private schools for educational
purposes;
6.for seeds and seedling research and pilot production center;
7.for church sites and convents appurtenant thereto;
8.for mosques sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;
9.for communal burial grounds and cemeteries;
10.for penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the
inmates;
11.for government and private research and quarantine centers;
12.all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except
those already developed. (Sec. 10 CARL).
13.Ancestral lands belonging to indigenous cultural communities
until their boundaries and extent are duly identified and delineated
by the proper governmental agency and segregated as part of the
public domain.

Question No. 15: Are livestock, poultry and raising lands properly
included in the application of CARL?

Answer: Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes “private

agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and
swine raising in the definition of commercial farm” is invalid, to the
extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be
covered by the agrarian reform program of the government.

In Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform;

04 December 1990, the SC ruled that there simply is no reason to
include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of the agrarian
reform.

ECC

I N J U R Y

Q. What is an injury?

Answer. Injury is defined as any harmful changes

in human organism from any accident sustained at

work while executing an order for the employer.

Q. What are the conditions for compensability of

injuries?

A. For injury and the resulting disability or death

to be compensable, the injury must be the

result of an accident that satisfies all of the

following conditions:
a. The employee must have been injured at the

place where his work requires him to be;

b. The employee must have been performing his

official functions;

c. If the injury was sustained elsewhere, the

employee must have been executing an order

for the employer (Sec. 1(a), Rule III, Amended

Rules on Employees Compensation).

Thus an injury or accident is said to arise “in

the course of employment” when it takes place

within the period of employment, at a place

where the employee may be, and while he is

fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing

something incidental thereto. Note that “in the

course” factor applies to time, place and

circumstances (PHHC vs. WCC, L – 18246, 30

October 1964).
Q AND A

1. Distinguish “arising out of” and “in the course of”

factors?

An injury or illness “arise out of” when it results

from a risk or hazard which is necessarily or

ordinarily or reasonably inherent in or incident to the

conduct of such work or business. It refers to the

origin or cause of the accident and are descriptive of

its character (PASUDECO; 16 SCRA 784).

“In the course of” takes place when an employee

is doing the duty which he is required to perform. It

refers to time, place, and circumstances under

which accident takes place (Afable vs. Singer

Machine Co.,58 Phil. 42).

2. What are the instances of compensable injuries?

The following are instances of compensable injuries:

a. Peculiar risks. A metro aide while at work on a

public street was crushed to death by an

automobile. The injury caused by an accident

was in pursuance his employment, thus

compensable.

b. Street perils. A caminero’s death or injury

performing his work when hit by a fast moving

vehicle is held to be compensable (Balajadia

vs. Province Supra).

A street sweeper is exposed to the perils of

the street thus any injury arising there from is

compensable (Balajadia vs. Province, G.R. No.

L-41979, 15 October 1934).

c. Acts of ministration. The injury of the

employee who heeded the “call of nature” and

sustained injuries in the performance of such

act, is deemed compensable. Likewise, acts

necessary to the health and comfort of an

 employee while at work such as satisfaction of

thirst, hunger, etc. are incidental to

employment and injuries sustained there from

are held to be compensable. (Chua vs. Roman,

L-14827, 31 October 1960).

d. Acts of God. A ships captain’s death because

his vessel sank in a marine disaster arising out

of employment is thus compensable (Murillo

vs. Mendoza, 66 Phil, 689).

A farm worker’s death while administering

insecticides to agricultural plants in the open field,

and lightning struck him, was held to be

compensable.

e. Assaults. A heated argument ensued between

two workers over a work assignment resulting

in an assault by one to the other; the injury or

death arising there from has been held to be

 compensable (BLTC vs. Mandaguit, 70 Phil.

685).

However, assault occasional not attributable

to employment such as when it sprang from

jealousy over a beautiful girl, as the two

workers as rivals, was held to be not

compensable.

f. Recreational activities. The injury of the

employee who was injured during a company-

sponsored recreational activity is deemed

compensable. The test is whether such

activity is for the benefit or interest of the

employer; otherwise it is not compensable. (99

C.J.S. 737; RP vs. Amil, 10 SCRA 669).

An employee won a prize (around the world tour)

for having been chosen as the “most outstanding

employee of the year.” In the course of such tour

he met an accident; the injury is deemed

compensable.

g. Acts for the benefit of the employer. In an

attempt to protect the properties of the

company, an employee was killed by the

burglars. The resulting death is compensable.

In his desire to retrieve the logs being

carried away by strong current, the employee,

although a good swimmer, met his death by

drowning as a consequence. This is deemed

compensable (Cuevo vs. Barrredo, No. L-

45699, 24 February 1938).

h. Acts during emergency. Whatever injuries are

sustained in the course of a rescue work

during an emergency arising out of the

employment are compensable. Injury suffered

by an employee in his attempt to rescue a co-

 worker arising out of employment, is also a

compensable (Estandarte vs. Phil. Motor

Alcohol Co., G.R. No. 39722, 1 November

1933).

3. Can injuries sustained off the premises be

compensable?

YES. An injury is compensable when it is

sustained an employee anytime and anywhere while

executing an order for the employer. A well-known

rule on the matter is the “coming and going” rule.

The following are compensable off-premise injuries:

a. The employee is on the way to or from work in

a vehicle owned or supplied by the employer.

Example is the employer’s supplied bus

(Talisay-silay Milling Co. vs. WCC, 21 SCRA

366).

b. The employee is subject to call at all hours or

at the moment of the injury. Example: The

 employer summoned him, while on his way he

was injured in an accident.

c. The employee is traveling for the employer.

Example: Traveling workers.

d. The employee is on his way to further work at

time, even though on a fixed salary. Example:

The employer required employee to bring some

papers at home for overtime purposes; on his

way he met an accident (Torbela vs. ECC, G.R.

No. L-42627, 21 February 1980).

e. The employee is required to bring the car to

employer’s business place for use therein

(Iloilo Dock and engineering Co. vs. 26 SCRA

102, 105).

f. The employee is accidentally injured at a point

reasonably proximate to the place of work,

such injury is deemed to have arisen out of

and in the course of his employment. Example:

 The school principal sustained an injury in a

vehicular accident while he was on his way to

school and at the time of the accident, he had

in his possession official papers he worked on

his residence on the eve of his death (Vda. De

Torbela vs. ECC, 96 SCRA 260).

4. What is the going and coming rule? Give the

exceptions to the rule.

The general rule in workmen’s compensation law

known as the going and coming rule, is that in the

absence of special circumstances, an employee

injured while going to or coming from his place of

work is excluded from the benefits of the workmen’s

compensation law. Thus, an injury or accident

sustained by an employee while using the public

streets and highways in going to or returning from

the place of employment is not compensable. Such

as injury is suffered as a consequence of risk and

hazard of employment. Furthermore, the employer is

not an insurer against all accidental injuries which

might happen to an employee while in the course of

employment. (Iloilo Dock and Engineering Co. vs.

WCC, 26 SCRA 102, 105)

This rule, however, admits of exceptions, to wit:

a. where the employee is proceeding to or from

his work on the premises of his employer;

b. where the employee is about to enter or about

to leave the premises of his employer by the

way of the exclusive or customary means of

ingress and egress (proximity rule);

c. where the employee is charged, while on his

way to of from his place of employment or at

his home, or during his employment with some

duty or special errand connected with his

employment; and
 d. where the employer as an incident of the

employment provides the means of

transportation to and from the place of

employment.

5. Explain and illustrate the proximity rule.

The proximity rule, an exception to the coming

and going rule, provides that an injury or accident

sustained off the employer’s premise, but while in

close proximity thereto and while using a customary

means of ingress and egress, is deemed

compensable.

Where the employee, while proceeding to work

and running to avoid the rain, slipped and fell into a

ditch fronting the main gate of the employer's

factory, and as a result of which he died the next

day, it was held that the accident occurred within

the zone of employment and therefore compensable.

6. What defenses may be interposed by the State

Insurance Fund against a claim for compensation

made by a covered employee or his dependents?

The following defenses may be set up:

a. The injury is not work-connected or the

sickness is not occupational.

b. The disability or death was occasioned by the

employee’s intoxication, willful intention to

injure or kill himself or another, or his

notorious negligence.

c. No notice of sickness, injury or death was

given to the employer.

d. The claim was filed beyond three (3) years

from the time the cause of action accrued.

7. Does intoxication bar compensation?

In order to prevent payment of compensation the

following conditions must concur:

 a. there must be proof of actual intoxication;

b. the intoxication must be to such a degree that

the employee is incapacitated from

substantially engaging in employment and

performing his task;

c. the intoxication must be the proximate cause

of the injury;

d. the intoxication must not only be the

proximate cause (Schneider, Workmen’s

Compensation Laws, Vol. VI, 493-4; Balbija vs.

Time Taxicab, 1219-R, 20 October 1955).

8. Does suicide bar compensation?

Since the employee committed the crime by

himself, the resulting death is not covered for

compensation as in the following cases;

a. when It results from insanity resulting from

compensable injury or disease;

 b. when it occurs during a delirium resulting from

compensable injury or disease; and

c. when it flows from an uncontrollable impulse

arising from compensable injury or disease

(Horovits, 41 Nebraska Law Journal, 36).

9. What is notorious negligence? Does it bar

compensation?

Notorious negligence is equivalent to gross

negligence; it is something more than mere

carelessness or lack of foresight; it falls under the

designation of evident and manifest negligence and

signifies a deliberate act of the employee to

disregard his own personal safety. However, mere

disobedience to the rules, orders and/or prohibition

does not in itself constitute notorious negligence, if

no intention can be attributed to the injured to end

his life.
 Notorious negligence resulting in serious injury

or death of the employee is not compensable.

However, no man in his senses would deliberately

cause death. Thus, the presumption is that the

laborer by his instinct of self-preservation takes

precaution to avoid such danger unless a willful

intention is attributed to him to end his life ( Dela

Cruz vs. Cia. Maritima, G.R. No. 38236, 21 August

1933).

10. What is the liability of the State Insurance Fund?

Whenever other laws provide similar benefits for

the same contingency, the employee who qualifies

for the benefits shall have the option to choose the

law under which the benefit will be paid to him. If

the law chosen provides for benefits lesser than

those provided by the Labor Code, he shall be

entitled only to the difference.

 The employee cannot avail himself at the same

time of similar benefits provided by different laws,

except the difference thereof. However, the

employer may continue to grant benefits already

earned by the employees under any collective

bargaining agreement or any other arrangement

(Sec. 2, Rule ІV, Amended Rules on Employees

Compensation).

11. What are the benefits excluded by the State

Insurance Fund?

The following benefits are excluded by the State

Insurance Fund:

a. Gratuity benefits under Section 699 of the

Revised Administrative Code, as amended by

R.A. No. 1232;

b. Retirement, disability, sickness, and death

benefits under the SSS Law ( R.A. No. 1161, as

amended);
 c. Life insurance, disability and retirement

benefits under the GSIS Law (Com. Act. No.

186, as amended);

d. Gratuities and pensions of every personnel for

deaths and disabilities incurred in line of duty

in accordance with R.A. No. 610, as amended;

e. Medical benefits administered by the

Philippine Medical Care Commission provided

in R.A. No. 4864, as amended; and

f. Other benefits granted by other laws and

administered either by the GSIS or SSS.

12. Is Article 173, now Art. 179 of the Labor Code,

as amended a bar to claim for damages under the

Civil Code?

NO. Article 179 of the Labor Code does not bar

to claim for damages under Civil Code arising from

employer’s negligence, for liability under Article 17 is

confined only to illness or injury.

13. Is simultaneous recovery of benefits allowed?

YES. While it is true the SSS Law (R.A. No. 1161,

as amended) is “distinct and different” from the

Labor Code, the provisions of Sections 15 of the SSS

law and Article 179 of the Labor Code are in pari

materia insofar as they both relate to payment of

compensation to covered employees, and insofar

also as both provisions barred the simultaneous

recovery of benefits under both the SSS Law and the

Labor Code, until Article 173, now Art. , was then

amended by P.D No. 1921 in 1984. The amendment

introduced by P.D No. 1921 to Article 179 lifted the

ban against the simultaneous recovery of benefits

under the Labor Code and the SSS law, and is

deemed to have repealed by necessary implication

the provision of Section 15 of the SSS Law. Since

P.D. No. 1921 is the latest expression of the

legislative will, it will prevail over Section 15 of the

SSS Law. (Opinions of the Secretary of justice dated

May 23, 1989 and January 12, 1990 addressed to the

SSS).

Furthermore, benefits under the State Insurance

Fund accrue due to the employees concerned due to

hazards involved and are made a burden on the

employment itself. On the other hand, social

security benefits are paid to SSS members by reason

of their membership therein for which they

contribute their money to a general fund.

It must be noted that under the new Social

Security Act (R.A. 8282), the provision of Section 15

of the old SSS law which bars simultaneous recovery

of benefits, has already been deleted.