Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lazo Vs Employees Compensation Commission
Lazo Vs Employees Compensation Commission
Petitioner, Salvador Lazo, is a security guard of the The policy then is to extend the applicability of the
Central Bank of the Philippines assigned to its main decree (PD 626) to as many employees who can
office in Malate, Manila. His regular tour of duty is avail of the benefits thereunder. This is in
from 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon to 10:00 o'clock consonance with the avowed policy of the State to
in the evening. On 18 June 1986, the petitioner give maximum aid and protection to labor. 9
rendered duty from 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon to
10:00 o'clock in the evening. But, as the security There is no reason, in principle, why employees
guard who was to relieve him failed to arrive, the should not be protected for a reasonable period of
petitioner rendered overtime duty up to 5:00 o'clock time prior to or after working hours and for a
in the morning of 19 June 1986, when he asked reasonable distance before reaching or after leaving
permission from his superior to leave early in order the employer's premises.
to take home to Binangonan, Rizal, his sack of rice.
Issue:
Whether or not the accident which involved the
petitioner occurred far from his work place and
while he was attending to a personal matter.
Held:
In the case at bar, it can be seen that petitioner left
his station at the Central Bank several hours after
his regular time off, because the reliever did not
arrive, and so petitioner was asked to go on
overtime. After permission to leave was given, he
went home. There is no evidence on record that
petitioner deviated from his usual, regular
homeward route or that interruptions occurred in the
journey.