FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 130379. June 21, 1999]
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs.
ANGELITA L. GABRIEL, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal via certiorari
from a decision of the Court of Appeals[1] and its resolution denying reconsideration of the
decision[2] reversing the ruling of the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Government Service Insurance System that denied the claim of
respondent Angelita L. Gabriel, as surviving spouse of the late Prosecutor
Rosendo Gabriel, Jr., for death benefits arising from his death due to work
connected ailment.
The pertinent facts are as
follows:
Prosecutor Rosendo Gabriel, Jr.
was at the time of his death on January 11, 1995, Prosecutor II, Office of the
City Prosecutor, Quezon City, with the following duties:
1. Conducting preliminary investigation of cases, misdemeanors, violations of city ordinances and resolving the same;
2. Attending court trials-prosecution of criminal offenses, trial and resting the ommission same for the State;
3. Attending inquest duties at assigned police stations once a week, daytime as well as night-time;
4. Attending detailed
assignment at the Philippine Commission on Good Government.[3]
His service record showed that he
had more than thirty (30) years service in the government starting as temporary
clerk in the office of Congressman Ramon Mitra on September 16, 1959.[4]
On December 6, 1993, Rosendo
Gabriel, Jr. was confined in the Philippine Heart Center for Asia, where he was
found suffering from "mild restrictive and obstructive pulmonary
defect" and "lower esophageal obstruction probably malignant"
for which he was advised to see a surgeon.[5] He consulted a surgeon at the Philippine General
Hospital; however, he refused to undergo surgery.[6]
On December 25, 1994, Rosendo
Gabriel, Jr. was rushed to the De Ocampo Memorial Hospital in Manila, for chest
pains. An EKG examination showed
"acute myocardial infarction”.[7] The certificate of the attending physician stated
that he also suffered from "esophageal cancer, hypertensive
atherosclerotic heart disease."[8]
On December 26, 1994, ECG
examination on Rosendo Gabriel, Jr. revealed "diffuse myocardial
ischemia."[9]
On January 2, 1995, he was taken
to the Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center, where a diagnosis of
"esophageal cancer, metastatic" was made. Obviously, the cancer was the immediate concern of the physicians
because he complained of dysphagia and dyspnea.[10] On the other hand, on December 25, 1994, in his
examination at the De Ocampo Memorial Hospital, a cardiologist found him to
have suffered from "acute myocardial infarction" as the chief
complaint was chest pains and "body malaise".[11]
On January 6, 1995, he was
discharged from the Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center. On January 8, 1995, he was back in the
Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center, where he was admitted and
diagnosed suffering from "esophageal cancer, metastasis with pleural
effusion."[12]
On January 11, 1995, Rosendo
Gabriel, Jr. died of "cardiac arrest" secondary to esophageal cancer.[13] The physician issued the following final diagnosis:
1. Coronary artery disease;
2. Myocardial infarction;
3. Esophageal carcinoma;
4. Pleural effusion, right;
5. Tube thoracostomy, right;
[14]
6. Mild restrictive and
obstructive ventricular defect.[15]
On February 8, 1995, respondent,
widow of the deceased, filed with the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) a claim for death benefits under P. D. No. 626, as amended. She submitted the required physician's
certificate and hospital records.[16]
On February 18, 1995, the GSIS
denied the claim because esophageal cancer is not listed as an occupational
disease under Annex "A" of P. D. No. 626, and "there is no
showing that claimant's duties involve risk of contracting the above
illness."[17]
On March 9, 1995, respondent moved
for reconsideration of the denial of her claim, and in connection therewith,
submitted additional documents to the GSIS in the form of physician's certification
showing that during the lifetime of the deceased, he suffered from
“atherosclerotic heart disease”, aside from esophageal cancer. Indeed, on account of such coronary artery
disease, the doctor certified that the deceased suffered from total permanent
disability.[18]
The case was elevated to the
Employees Compensation Commission. On
November 16, 1995, the Employees Compensation Commission denied the motion.
On May 7, 1996, respondent filed
with the Court of Appeals[19] a special civil action seeking to reverse the ruling
of the Employees Compensation Commission.
On July 7, 1997, the Court of
Appeals rendered decision reversing the decision of the Employees Compensation
Commission, finding that the deceased also suffered from acute myocardial
infarction with final diagnosis of "esophageal cancer",
"hypertensive atherosclerotic heart disease, per medical certificate of
his attending physician, Dr. Joseph T. Villanueva."[20]
Hence, this appeal, which we find
to be without merit.
The basic question presented is
whether the resulting death of prosecutor Rosendo Gabriel, Jr. from his last
illness is compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.
We rule that the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) erred
in denying compensation benefits to the surviving spouse of the deceased
because even if esophageal cancer is not compensable, there can be no question
that coronary artery disease or atherosclerotic heart disease is compensable. Incidentally, the benefits under the
Employees Compensation Act for total permanent disability or death are the
same.[21]
What is more, the deceased's
immediate cause of death was "cardiac arrest". Medical experts agree that when the onset is
instantaneous or abrupt, the probability is that the arrest is cardiac in
origin and related to an underlying coronary artery disease.[22] In the case of prosecutor Gabriel, the cardiac arrest
causing sudden death was more likely precipitated by myocardial infarction or
hypertensive heart disease rather than by esophageal cancer, which is a chronic
disease.[23] In this case, no autopsy was done. Hence, we have to accept the fact that the
cardiac arrest was caused primarily by myocardial infarction rather than by
esophageal cancer. It must be emphasized
that on December 25, 1994, barely two (2) weeks before he suffered cardiac
arrest, Rosendo Gabriel, Jr. had an EKG done which showed "acute
myocardial infarction."
Consequently, we hold that the
deceased Rosendo Gabriel, Jr. suffered from a compensable ailment, whether it
be "acute myocardial infarction" or "hypertensive,
atherosclerotic heart disease", which associated with "esophageal
carcinoma, metastatic, with pleural effusion" precipitated a "cardiac
arrest" that was the immediate cause of death. It has been held that "hypertension and heart ailment"
are compensable.[24] And so was "ischemic heart disease" held
compensable, whether or not the cause of the disability is work-connected.[25] Hence, we have enough basis for holding, as we do,
that prosecutor Gabriel suffered from a compensable disease, and thus his heirs
are entitled to death benefits.
In Government Service Insurance
System vs. Court of Appeals,[26] we said that “the incidence of a listed occupational
disease, whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment is enough basis
for requiring compensation.”
Thus, the GSIS and the Employees
Compensation Commission erred in denying the claim of the widow of the deceased
Rosendo Gabriel, Jr. for death benefits.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G. R. SP No. 40540, ordering the Government Service Insurance System to
pay respondent Gabriel's claim for death benefits under the Employees
Compensation Act.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide,
Jr., C.J. (Chairman), see
dissent.
[1]
In CA-G. R. SP. No. 40540, promulgated on July 7, 1997, Elbinias, J., ponente,
Barcelona and Asuncion, JJ. concurring.
[2] Adopted on August 22, 1997.
[3] Comment, Rollo, pp. 50-59, on p. 52;
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 61.
[4] Comment,
Rollo, on p. 51, Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 60.
[5] Comment, Rollo, on p.52; Petition for
Review, Annex “E-1” CA-G. R. SP No. 40540, CA Rollo, p. 20.
[6] Idem. p. 20.
[7] Idem. CA Rollo, p. 20.
[8] Petition, Annex “E”, CA Rollo, p. 16.
[9] Petition, CA Rollo, p. 41.
[10] Idem. CA Rollo, p. 34.
[11] Idem. Rollo, pp. 20, 31.
[12] Petition, Annex “E-3”, CA Rollo, p.
33.
[13] Death Certificate, CA Rollo, p. 167;
SC Rollo, pp. 34, 208.
[14] This is a procedure to remove fluids from the
pleural cavity, not an illness.
[15] SC Rollo, p. 101.
[16] Petition, Rollo, p. 13; Comment, Rollo,
p. 53.
[17] Comment, Rollo, p. 53.
[18] Comment, Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[19] Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 40540.
[20] Petition, Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 27-30.
[21] See Section 192, 194, Labor Code of the
Philippines.
[22] Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 1994
13th ed. Vol. 1, pp. 194-195.
[23] Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, 35th
Edition, 1996, p. 81.
[24] Roldan vs. Republic, 182 SCRA 230.
[25] Tria vs. Employees Compensation
Commission, 208 SCRA 834.
[26] 250 SCRA 491, 499.