G.R. No. 58445 - APRIL 1989 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 58445April 27, 1989Zaida G. Rarovs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. Nos. 63253-54April 27, 1989Pablo Rallavs. Romulo P. Untalan G.R. No. 78635April 27, 1989Leonora Obañavs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80863April 27, 1989Antonio M. Villanuevavs. Abednego O. Adre G.R. No. 81551April 27, 1989Philippine Nat.Cons. Corporationvs. Philippines Nat. Labor Rel. G.R. No. 51832April 26, 1989Rafael Patriciovs. Hon. Oscar Leviste G.R. No. 57822April 26, 1989Fr. Pedro Escudero, et al.vs. Office of the President of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 64753April 26, 1989Placido Manalo, et al.vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. 73978-80April 26, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Isaias Glinogo, et al. G.R. No. 77085April 26, 1989Philippine Inter. Shipping Corporationvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80638April 26, 1989Gabriel Elanevs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 81471April 26, 1989Chong Guan Tradingvs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. A.C. No. 1437April 25, 1989Hilaria Tanhuecovs. Justiniano G. De Dumo G.R. No. 67451April 25, 1989Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc, et al.vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. 76391-92April 25, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Domingo Baysa, et al. G.R. No. 76854-60April 25, 1989Augusto C. Legastovs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80998April 25, 1989Leonardo B. Lucenavs. Pan-Trade, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 81332April 25, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Allan T. Rodriguez G.R. No. 82580April 25, 1989Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.vs. NLRC G.R. No. 36081April 24, 1989Progressive Development Corporationvs. Quezon City G.R. No. 44095April 24, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Hon. Oscar P. Siat, et al. G.R. No. 52119April 24, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Benjamin Padilla G.R. No. 74479April 24, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Concordio Sarda G.R. No. 79899April 24, 1989D. Annie Tanvs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 80882April 24, 1989Southern Philippines Federation of Laborvs. Honorable Pura Ferrer Calleja G.R. No. 85785April 24, 1989Benito O. Syvs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 35238April 21, 1989Rep. of the Philippinesvs. Vicente G. Ericta G.R. No. 33284April 20, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Rolando Centeno, et al. G.R. No. 44902April 20, 1989Sergia Bautista Estrella, et al.vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. R-218-MTJApril 19, 1989Conchita C. Valenciavs. Jose Montemayor G.R. No. 39607April 19, 1989Union Carbide Philippines, Inc.vs. Secretary of Labor, et al. G.R. No. 45866April 19, 1989Overseas Bank of Manilavs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 47300April 19, 1989Godofredo S. Gonzagavs. the Secretary of Labor G.R. No. 55082April 19, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. N. De Los Santos G.R. No. 61756April 19, 1989Maria Vda. De Tolentinovs. Felizardo S.M. De Guzman G.R. No. 75672April 19, 1989Heirs of Gumanganvs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 81162April 19, 1989Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippinesvs. Job Guanzon, et al. G.R. No. 81176April 19, 1989Plastic Town Centervs. National Labor Rel. Com. G.R. No. 81477April 19, 1989Dentech Mftg. Corporationvs. NLRC G.R. No. 82312April 19, 1989Mlqu Assoc.vs. Mlq Educ. Inst., Inc. G.R. Nos. 28502-03April 18, 1989Commissioner of Internal Revenuevs. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 46127April 18, 1989Concepcion Dela Rosavs. Tarcela Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. 48714April 18, 1989Gregorio Jandusayvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 58028April 18, 1989Chiang Kai Shek Schoolvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 62909April 18, 1989Hydro Resources Contractors Corporationvs. Adrian N. Pagalilauan G.R. No. 67626April 18, 1989Jose Remo, Jr.vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 67787April 18, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Rosie Cuaresma G.R. No. 72783April 18, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Francisco Rebancos G.R. Nos. 73486-87April 18, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Simplicio Sabanal G.R. No. 76853April 18, 1989Philippine Commercial Int. Bankvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80039April 18, 1989Ernesto M. Apodacavs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 81833April 18, 1989Catalina B. Vda. De Alvirvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 81961April 18, 1989Director of Land Managementvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82741April 18, 1989Mansalay Catholic High Schoolvs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 83234April 18, 1989Osias Academyvs. Department of Labor and Employment, et al. G.R. No. 83513April 18, 1989Leoncito Pacañavs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 84481April 18, 1989Mindanao Savings & Loan Association, Inc., et al.vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 84764April 18, 1989Continental Airlines, Inc., et al.vs. Hon. Consuelo Y. Santiago, et al. G.R. No. 26855April 17, 1989Francisco Garciavs. Jose Calaliman G.R. No. 36786April 17, 1989Pedro Limvs. Perfecto Jabalde G.R. No. 46079April 17, 1989Esteban C. Manuelvs. the Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño, et al. G.R. No. 57395April 17, 1989Alfredo De Guzmanvs. Jesus M. Elbinias G.R. No. 58986April 17, 1989Dante Y. Govs. Fernando Cruz G.R. No. 63742April 17, 1989Tanjay Water Distr.vs. Pedro Gabaton G.R. Nos. 64867-68April 17, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Jaime L. Garcia G.R. No. 66420April 17, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Gerardo Almenario G.R. No. 72837April 17, 1989Ester Javellanavs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 74225April 17, 1989Republic of the Philippinesvs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 78827April 17, 1989Enrique L. S. Villaruelvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79425April 17, 1989Cresenciana Atun Esquivelvs. Angel M. Alegre G.R. No. 82072April 17, 1989Georgia G. Tumangvs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 82346-47April 17, 1989Victorlano Adavs. J. Marciano T. Virola, et al. G.R. No. 82373April 17, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Modesto C. Lamog, et al. G.R. No. 84307April 17, 1989Ciriaco Hinoguinvs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. 86595April 17, 1989Philippines National Construction Corporation Tollwaysvs. The National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division), et al. G.R. No. 29390April 12, 1989Republic of the Philippinesvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 37289April 12, 1989City of Nagavs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 49022April 12, 1989Antonio S. Pendotvs. Court of Appeal G.R. No. 53446April 12, 1989Philippine Long Distance Tel.vs. Ceferino Dulay G.R. No. 71752April 12, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Roberto M. Ranola G.R. No. 77539April 12, 1989Associated Labor Unionsvs. Cresenciano B. Trajano G.R. No. 78252April 12, 1989Paluwagan Ng Bayan Savings Bankvs. Angelo King G.R. No. 78684April 12, 1989Luis Susonvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78774April 12, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Dominador R. Salcedo G.R. Nos. 79718-22April 12, 1989Quezon Electric Coop.vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 79946April 12, 1989Geronimo Manalaysayvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80800April 12, 1989Imelda Syjucovs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 83139April 12, 1989Arnel Syvs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 84087April 12, 1989Teodora Catuiravs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 69492April 13, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Glenn Velasco G.R. No. 80089April 13, 1989People of the Philippinesvs. Saturnino Rey G.R. No. 86439April 13, 1989Mary Concepcion Bautistavs. Senator Jovito R. Salonga, et al. A.C. No. 2144April 10, 1989Celedonio Quilban, et al.vs. Santiago R. Robinol G.R. No. 55272April 10, 1989Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc.vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 62259April 10, 1989Dolores V. Mendoza, et al.,vs. Agrix Marketing, Inc. G.R. No. 67752April 10, 1989National Economic Protectionism Association, et al.vs. Roberto V. Ongpin, et al. G.R. No. 74151-54April 10, 1989Supercars, Inc.vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. 76119April 10, 1989Shell Petroleum Corporationvs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 78295 & 79917April 10, 1989Celso D. Laviñavs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78595April 10, 1989Timoteo Magnovs. Florentina Florentina Blanco, et al., G.R. No. 79106April 10, 1989Christian Literature Crusadevs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 79582April 10, 1989Republic of the Philippinesvs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 80455-56April 10, 1989Central Bank of the Philippines, et al.vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 80687April 10, 1989Republic of the Philippinesvs. Mariano M. Umali, et al., G.R. No. 82009April 10, 1989Citytrust Banking Corporationvs. Court of Appeals The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Zaida G. Rarovs. Employees' Compensation CommissionPablo Rallavs. Romulo P. UntalanLeonora Obañavs. Court of AppealsAntonio M. Villanuevavs. Abednego O. AdrePhilippine Nat.Cons. Corporationvs. Philippines Nat. Labor Rel.Rafael Patriciovs. Hon. Oscar LevisteFr. Pedro Escudero, et al.vs. Office of the President of the Philippines, et al.Placido Manalo, et al.vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Isaias Glinogo, et al.Philippine Inter. Shipping Corporationvs. Court of AppealsGabriel Elanevs. Court of Appeals, et al.Chong Guan Tradingvs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Hilaria Tanhuecovs. Justiniano G. De DumoRealty Sales Enterprises, Inc, et al.vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Domingo Baysa, et al.Augusto C. Legastovs. Court of AppealsLeonardo B. Lucenavs. Pan-Trade, Inc., et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Allan T. RodriguezCoca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.vs. NLRCProgressive Development Corporationvs. Quezon CityPeople of the Philippinesvs. Hon. Oscar P. Siat, et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Benjamin PadillaPeople of the Philippinesvs. Concordio SardaD. Annie Tanvs. Court of Appeals, et al.Southern Philippines Federation of Laborvs. Honorable Pura Ferrer CallejaBenito O. Syvs. People of the Philippines, et al.Rep. of the Philippinesvs. Vicente G. ErictaPeople of the Philippinesvs. Rolando Centeno, et al.Sergia Bautista Estrella, et al.vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Conchita C. Valenciavs. Jose MontemayorUnion Carbide Philippines, Inc.vs. Secretary of Labor, et al.Overseas Bank of Manilavs. Court of Appeals, et al.Godofredo S. Gonzagavs. the Secretary of LaborPeople of the Philippinesvs. N. De Los SantosMaria Vda. De Tolentinovs. Felizardo S.M. De GuzmanHeirs of Gumanganvs. Court of Appeals, et al.Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippinesvs. Job Guanzon, et al.Plastic Town Centervs. National Labor Rel. Com.Dentech Mftg. Corporationvs. NLRCMlqu Assoc.vs. Mlq Educ. Inst., Inc.Commissioner of Internal Revenuevs. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., et al.Concepcion Dela Rosavs. Tarcela Fernandez, et al.Gregorio Jandusayvs. Court of AppealsChiang Kai Shek Schoolvs. Court of AppealsHydro Resources Contractors Corporationvs. Adrian N. PagalilauanJose Remo, Jr.vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippinesvs. Rosie CuaresmaPeople of the Philippinesvs. Francisco RebancosPeople of the Philippinesvs. Simplicio SabanalPhilippine Commercial Int. Bankvs. Court of AppealsErnesto M. Apodacavs. National Labor Relations CommissionCatalina B. Vda. De Alvirvs. Court of AppealsDirector of Land Managementvs. Court of AppealsMansalay Catholic High Schoolvs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Osias Academyvs. Department of Labor and Employment, et al.Leoncito Pacañavs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Mindanao Savings & Loan Association, Inc., et al.vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Continental Airlines, Inc., et al.vs. Hon. Consuelo Y. Santiago, et al.Francisco Garciavs. Jose CalalimanPedro Limvs. Perfecto JabaldeEsteban C. Manuelvs. the Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño, et al.Alfredo De Guzmanvs. Jesus M. ElbiniasDante Y. Govs. Fernando CruzTanjay Water Distr.vs. Pedro GabatonPeople of the Philippinesvs. Jaime L. GarciaPeople of the Philippinesvs. Gerardo AlmenarioEster Javellanavs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRepublic of the Philippinesvs. Intermediate Appellate CourtEnrique L. S. Villaruelvs. Court of AppealsCresenciana Atun Esquivelvs. Angel M. AlegreGeorgia G. Tumangvs. Court of AppealsVictorlano Adavs. J. Marciano T. Virola, et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Modesto C. Lamog, et al.Ciriaco Hinoguinvs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Philippines National Construction Corporation Tollwaysvs. The National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division), et al.Republic of the Philippinesvs. Court of AppealsCity of Nagavs. Court of AppealsAntonio S. Pendotvs. Court of AppealPhilippine Long Distance Tel.vs. Ceferino DulayPeople of the Philippinesvs. Roberto M. RanolaAssociated Labor Unionsvs. Cresenciano B. TrajanoPaluwagan Ng Bayan Savings Bankvs. Angelo KingLuis Susonvs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippinesvs. Dominador R. SalcedoQuezon Electric Coop.vs. National Labor Relations CommissionGeronimo Manalaysayvs. Court of AppealsImelda Syjucovs. Court of AppealsArnel Syvs. Court of AppealsTeodora Catuiravs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippinesvs. Glenn VelascoPeople of the Philippinesvs. Saturnino ReyMary Concepcion Bautistavs. Senator Jovito R. Salonga, et al.Celedonio Quilban, et al.vs. Santiago R. RobinolJardine-Manila Finance, Inc.vs. Court of AppealsDolores V. Mendoza, et al.,vs. Agrix Marketing, Inc.National Economic Protectionism Association, et al.vs. Roberto V. Ongpin, et al.Supercars, Inc.vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, et al.,Shell Petroleum Corporationvs. Court of AppealsCelso D. Laviñavs. Court of AppealsTimoteo Magnovs. Florentina Florentina Blanco, et al.,Christian Literature Crusadevs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.,Republic of the Philippinesvs. Court of AppealsCentral Bank of the Philippines, et al.vs. Civil Service CommissionRepublic of the Philippinesvs. Mariano M. Umali, et al.,Citytrust Banking Corporationvs. Court of AppealsThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-58445 April 27, 1989

ZAIDA G. RARO,petitioner,
vs.
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences),respondents.

GUTIERREZ,JR., J.:

Jurisprudence on the compensability of cancer ailments has of late become a source of confusion among the claimants and the government agencies enforcing the employees' compensation law. The strongly lingering influence of the principles of 94 presumption of compensability" and "aggravation" found in the defunct Workmen's Compensation Act but expressly discarded under the present compensation scheme has led to conflict and inconsistency in employees' compensation decisions.

The problem is attributable to the inherent difficulty in applying the new principle of "proof of increased risk." There are two approaches to a solution in cases where it cannot be proved that the risk of contracting an illness not listed as an occupational disease was increased by the claimant's working conditions. The one espoused by the petitioner insists that if a claimant cannot prove the necessary work connection because the causes of the disease are still unknown, it must be presumed that working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. On the other hand, the respondents state that if there is no proof of the required work connection, the disease is not compensable because the law says so.

The petitioner states that she was in perfect health when employed as a clerk by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences at its Daet, Camarines Norte regional office on March 17, 1975. About four years later, she began suffering from severe and recurrent headaches coupled with blurring of vision. Forced to take sick leaves every now and then, she sought medical treatment in Manila. She was then a Mining Recorder in the Bureau.

The petitioner was diagnosed at the Makati Medical Center to be suffering from brain tumor. By that time, her memory, sense of time, vision, and reasoning power had been lost.

A claim for disability benefits filed by her husband with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) was denied. A motion for reconsideration was similarly denied. An appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission resulted in the Commission's affirming the GSIS decision.

The following issues are raised in this petition:

The key argument of the petitioner is based on the fact that medical science cannot, as yet, positively identify the causes of various types of cancer. It is a disease that strikes people in general.ℒαwρhi৷The nature of a person's 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 bowels of the earth. It makes the 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.

It is not also correct to say that all cancers are not compensable. The list of occupational diseases prepared by the Commission includes some cancers as compensable, namely —

The petitioner questions the above listing. We see no arbitrariness in the Commission's allowing vinyl chloride workers or plastic workers to be compensated for brain cancer. There are certain cancers which are reasonably considered as strongly induced by specific causes. Heavy doses of radiation as in Chernobyl, USSR, cigarette smoke over a long period for lung cancer, certain chemicals for specific cancers, and asbestos dust, among others, are generally accepted as increasing the risks of contracting specific cancers. What the law requires for others is proof.

The first thing that stands in the way of the petition is the law itself.

Presidential Decree No. 422, as amended, the Labor Code of the Philippines defines "sickness" as follows:

Section 1 (b), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation clearly defines who are entitled. It provides:

The law, as it now stands requires the claimant to prove apositive thing –the illness was caused by employment and the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. To say that since the proof is not available, therefore, the trust fund has the obligation to pay is contrary to the legal requirement that proof must be adduced. The existence of otherwise non-existent proof cannot be presumed .

InNavalta v. Government Service Insurance System(G.R. No. 46684, April 27, 1988) this Court recognized the fact that cancer is a disease of still unknown origin which strikes; people in all walks of life, employed or unemployed. Unless it be shown that a particular form of cancer is caused by specific working conditions (e. g. chemical fumes, nuclear radiation, asbestos dust, etc.) we cannot conclude that it was the employment which increased the risk of contracting the disease .

To understand why the "Presumption of compensability" together with the host of decisions interpreting the "arising out of and in the course of employment" provision of the defunct law has been stricken from the present law, one has to go into the distinctions between the old workmen's compensation law and the present scheme.

On January 1, 1975, the Workmen's Compensation Act was replaced by a novel scheme under the new Labor Code. The new law discarded, among others, the concepts of "presumption of compensability" and "aggravation" and substituted a system based on social security principles. The present system is also administered by social insurance agencies — the Government Service Insurance System and Social Security System — under the Employees' Compensation Commission. The intent was to restore a sensible equilibrium between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's compensation and the employee's right to receive reparation for work- connected death or disability. (Sulit v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 98 SCRA 483 [1980]; Armena v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 122 SCRA 851 [1983]; Erese v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 138 SCRA 192 [1985]; De Jesus v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 142 SCRA 92 [1986]; Sarmiento v. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al., GR No. 65680, May 11, 1988).

Instead of an adversarial contest by the worker or his family against the employer, we now have a social insurance scheme where regular premiums are paid by employers to a trust fund and claims are paid from the trust fund to those who can prove entitlement.

InSarmiento v. Employees' Compensation Commission (supra),we affirmed the validity of the new law by explaining the present system as follows:

The non-adversarial nature of employees' compensation proceedings is crucial to an understanding of the present scheme. There is a widespread misconception that the poor employee is still arrayed against the might and power of his rich corporate employer. Hence, he must be given all kinds of favorable presumptions. This is fallacious. It is now the trust fund and not the employer which suffers if benefits are paid to claimants who are not entitled under the law. The employer joins its employees in trying to have their claims approved. The employer is spared the problem of proving anegativeproposition that the diseasewas not causedby employment. It is a government institution which protects the stability and integrity of the State Insurance Fund against the payment of non-compensable claims. The employee, this time assisted by his employer, is required to prove apositiveproposition, that the risk of contracting the isincreasedby working conditions.

The social insurance aspect of the present law is the other important feature which distinguishes it from the old and familiar system.

Employees' compensation is based on social security principles. All covered employers throughout the country are required by law to contribute fixed and regular premiums or contributions to a trust fund for their employees. Benefits are paid from this trust fund. At the time the amount of contributions was being fixed, actuarial studies were undertaken. The actuarially determined number of workers who would probably file claims within any given year is important in insuring the stability of the said fund and making certain that the system can pay benefits when due to all who are entitled and in the increased amounts fixed by law.

We have no actuarial expertise in this Court. If diseases not intended by the law to be compensated are inadvertently or recklessly included, the integrity of the State Insurance Fund is endangered. Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered by the law ignores the need toshow a greater concern for the trust fundto winch the tens of millions of workers and their families look for compensation whenever covered accidents, salary and deaths occur. As earlier stated, if increased contributions or premiums must be paid in order to give benefits to those who are now excluded, it is Congress which should amend the law after proper actuarial studies. This Court cannot engage in judicial legislation on such a complex subject with such far reaching implications.

We trust that the public respondents and the Social Security System are continually evaluating the actuarial soundness of the trust funds they administer. In this way, more types of cancers and other excluded diseases may be included in the list of covered occupational diseases. Or legislation may be recommended to Congress either increasing the contribution rates of employers, increasing benefit payments, or making it easier to prove entitlement. We regret that these are beyond the powers of this Court to accomplish.

For the guidance of the administrative agencies and practising lawyers concerned, this decision expressly supersedes the decisions inPanotes v. Employees' Compensation Commission[128 SCRA 473 (1984)];Mercado v. Employees' Compensation Commission[127 SCRA 664 (1984)];Ovenson v. Employees' Compensation Commission[156 SCRA 21 (1987)];Nemaria v. Employees' Compensation Commission[155 SCRA 166 (1987)] and other cases with conclusions different from those stated above.

WHEREFORE,the petition is herebyDISMISSEDThe questioned decision of the public respondents isAFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan , C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinion

SARMIENTO,J.,dissenting:

I do not think that the Labor Code intended to do away with the "presumption of compensability" prevailing under the old Workmen's Compensation Act. It must be noted that as a social legislation, the Code is fundamentally a measure intended to afford protection unto the working class. If any protection should be given to labor, it is in workmen's compensation cases that protection is a felt need.

The primacy that the majority would give to the integrity of the trust fund 'to which the tens of millions of workers and their families look for compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases, and deaths occur is1correct but, in my view, hardly the point. In granting the petitioner compensation, I do not believe we would have dissipated substantially the State Insurance Fund, and considering the fact that the petitioner is a victim herself.

It must likewise be noted that the petitioner is suffering from cancer (brain tumor), whose cause medical science is yet to unravel. It would then be asking too much to make her prove that her illness was caused by work or aggravated by it, when experts themselves are ignorant as to what brings it about.

I do not believe, finally, that the question in a matter for legislation. Compassion, it is my view, is reason enough.

Footnotes

Separate Opinion

PARAS,J.,dissenting:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated August 27, 1981 of respondent-Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) in ECC Case No. 1692 entitled "Zaida G. Raro vs. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),which dismissed the claim of petitioner Zaida G. Raro for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 as amended for her ailment diagnosed as "brain tumor."

Petitioner assigns the following alleged errors:

First

THE SYSTEM AND THE COMMISSION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT BRAIN TUMOR IS ALLEGEDLY NOT A LISTED OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE; HENCE, PETITIONER IS REQUIRED TO PROVE BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CAUSED BY HER EMPLOYMENT.

Second

THE SYSTEM AND THE COMMISSION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT BRAIN TUMOR WHICH CAUSE IS UNKNOWN CANNOT BE CAUSED BY THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT.

Third

THE SYSTEM AND THE COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING BRAIN TUMOR AS A BORDERLINE CASE, HENCE COMPENSABLE.

Fourth

THE SYSTEM AND THE COMMISSION DISOBEYED THE STATUTORY MANDATE THAT ALL DOUBTS SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR AND IGNORED THE NATURE OF LABOR LAWS AS SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS.

The undisputed facts, summarized by the Office of the Solicitor-General, are as follows:

Petitioner was hired as clerk on March 17, 1975 by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences at its office in Daet, Camarines Norte.

In the course of her employment, petitioner contracted an ailment which was diagnosed as brain tumor. Petitioner stopped working because of said ailment.

On January 7, 1980, petitioner filed with respondent GSIS a claim for disability benefits under P.D. 626, as amended.

On November 24, 1980, respondent GSIS denied petitioner's claim on the ground that brain tumor was not an occupational disease. Respondent GSIS also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, respondent ECC sustained the GSIS decision.

We find this petition impressed with merit.

While "brain tumor" is not expressly or specifically referred to as an occupational disease, and while admittedly its precise causes are still unknown, We may say that the disease is akin to "cancer of the brain" and should therefore be regarded as eithercompensable or a borderlinecase. At any rate, the precise work of the petitioner at the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences consisted of the following:

It will readily be seen that her work required at times mental concentration. Whether this is specifically causative of brain tumor is of course stillunknownbut doubts must generally be resolved in favor whenever compensation for disease is concerned. It would certainly be absurd to throw upon petitioner the burden of showing that her work either caused or aggravated the disease, particularly when both the GSIS and ECC profess ignorance themselves of the causes of the disease.

Nowhere is this truism more glaring than in cancer, the most dreaded of all diseases mankind has ever known. Held the Supreme Court in the case ofAcosta v. Employees' Compensation Commission(L-55464, Nov. 12, 1981): "It is generally accepted that the exact origin of practically all types of cancer is not yet determined. Scientists and medical experts are still in the process of discovering the most effective cure for the malady. With this backdrop, one should not expect ordinary persons to prove the real cause of the ailment of the deceased when the experts themselves are still in the dark."

In a case like the present one, even medical experts have not determined its cause, and therefore the duty to prove does not exist for it is absurd for the law to require an impossibility. Thus in the case of 139 SCRA 270 citingCristobal v. ECC,103 SCRA 329, We ruled as follows:

In the more recent case ofFlaviano Nemaria,1Petitioner versus Employees' Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System (Ministry of Education and Culture),Respondents, promulgated October 28, 1987 and following the rule We enunciated in the Mercado case, We stated:

PREMISES CONSIDERED,it is my humble opinion that this petition should beGRANTED.The decision of the respondent Employees Compensation Commission should beSET ASIDEand another should be rendered ordering the respondents to pay the herein petitioner the full amount of compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626 as amended.

Footnotes