BUNAO V. SS

Facts: Artus Bunao (husband of the petitioner) works as an acting 2nd marine engineer for Ocean Tanker Corporation from 1995 to 1999.

In 1999 Artus was rushed to a hospital and he was diagnosed to have Renal Cell Cancer. The same was reported to SSS.

He was then again admitted after one month due to loose vowel movement and body weakness.

After 15days Artus died due to renal cell cancer.

Petitioner ( wife of artus ) filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, before the SSS. The SSS, however, denied the claim on the ground that her husband’s ailment, which caused his death, is not included in the list of occupational diseases, and that the same has no causal relationship with the nature of her husband’s work.

Petitioner appealed to ECC, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the SSS’ decision.

They filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, but the same was dismissed for having been filed out of time.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: W/N Petitioner is entitled to compensation benefits under PD. 626.

Held: No, under the Labor Code, her husbands illness which eventually led to his demise is not compensable.

Petitioner alleged that in the performance of her husbands duties as 2nd Marine Engineer, part

of which reads: 6. Ensures the upkeep and maintenance of the Engine Room by arranging,

monitoring and controlling day to day engine room maintenance activities in coordination with Chief Engineer.

7. Ensures the smooth operation of the vessel main and auxiliary machinery.8. Transfers and/or fills up fuel oil and lube oil settling and dry tanks, if

necessary . . . .

the latter was exposed to leaded petrol and petroleum products that contain various chemicals

like hydrogen, benzene and lead which are health hazards because of their carcinogenicity. She

claims that most of these chemicals precipitate kidney disease, kidney cancer and liver cancer.

Unfortunately, such bare allegations and vague excerpts on cancer do not constitute such

evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that there is

indeed a causal relationship between the illness of the deceased and his working conditions.

Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions.[13] The claimant must

prove a positive proposition.There is no showing that the progression of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions in Artuss job. Petitioner did not present medical history, records or physicians report in order to substantiate her claim that the working conditions on board the vessels M/T Palawan, M/T Guimaras and M/T Buenavista increased the risk of contracting renal cell cancer.

Certainly, cancer is a disease that strikes people in general. The nature of a persons employment appears to have no relevance. Cancer can strike a lowly paid laborer or a highly paid executive or one who works on land, in water, or in the deep bowels of the earth. It makes no difference whether the victim is employed or unemployed, a white collar employee or a blue collar worker, a housekeeper, an urban dweller or a resident of a rural area.

GSIS v. BesitanG.R. No. 178901: November 23, 2011

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. MANUEL P. BESITAN, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner GSIS is a social insurance institution charged with the management and administration of the trust fund of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) for government officials and employees.

Respondent Besitan was employed by the Central Bank of the Philippines on January 21, 1976 as a Bank Examiner. Subsequently, he was promoted as Bank Officer II and eventually as Bank Officer III.

In October 2005, Besitan was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis and thus, had to undergo a kidney transplant at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI), for which he incurred medical expenses amounting to P817,455.40.

Believing that his working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, Besitan filed with the GSIS a claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 626, as amended. The GSIS, however, denied the claim. The GSIS Decision was affirmed by the Employees Compensation Commission but reversed by the Court of Appeals.

GSIS contends that Besitans ailment is not an occupational disease; hence, it is incumbent upon him to prove that the risk of contracting the said disease was increased by his employment and working condition. And since he failed to show that there is a causal relationship between his employment and his ailment, he cannot claim compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as amended.

Besitan admits that his ailment is not listed as an occupational disease under PD No. 626, as amended. He, however, insists that he was able to prove by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working condition. He maintains that in claiming compensation benefits, certainty is not required, only probability. He points out that he was in good health when he was employed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in 1976 and that it was only in 2004 that he contracted his kidney ailment.

ISSUE:

I. Whether Besitan is entitled to compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as amended

HELD:

Section 1, Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation provides that for the sickness or resulting disability or death to be compensable, the claimant must prove either (1) that the employee's sickness was the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, or (2) that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working conditions.

Under the increased risk theory, there must be a reasonable proof that the employees working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, or that there is a connection between his work and the cause of the disease. Only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, however, is required to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease. Probability, and not certainty, is the yardstick in compensation proceedings; thus, any doubt should be interpreted in favor of the employees for whom social legislations, like PD No. 626, were enacted.

Moreover, direct and clear evidence, is not necessary to prove a claim. Strict rules of evidence

do not apply as PD No. 626 only requires substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

In this case, since Besitans ailment, End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis is not among those listed under Annex "A," of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, he needs to show by substantial evidence that his risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working condition.

After a careful study of the instant case, we find that Besitan has sufficiently proved that his working condition increased his risk of contracting Glomerulonephritis, which according to GSIS may be caused by bacterial, viral, and parasitic infection (i.e. Typhoid fever, Syphilis, Leptospirosis, Toxoplasmosis, Varicella, Mumps, Measles, Schistosomiasis, Hepatitis B and C infection, etc.).