THIRD DIVISION
|
government service insurance
system, Petitioner, - versus - melvin i.
palma,
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 167572 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
Respondent Melvin I. Palma started
his teaching vocation in the government as a Practical Arts teacher in
On 15 to 18 April 1980, respondent
underwent surgical excision of the cervical lymph node at the
On
Please be advised that on the basis of the proofs and
evidences submitted to this Office, your ailment “Total Thyroidectomy”,
is not considered an occupational disease as that your position as High School Teacher, Division of City
Schools, Manila, had increased the risk of contracting said ailment.[3]
Respondent requested petitioner to
reconsider its decision, but the latter stood firm in denying his claim
reasoning that:
We regret to inform the claimant that we reiterate the
disapproval of his claim under P.D. 626, as amended because there is no
concrete and substantial proof to show that the illness was brought about by
the performance of his duties while still in the service.[4]
Then, in September 1997, he was
subjected to Tracheostomy. This operation worsened respondent’s
condition which forced him to retire in December of 1997.
On
In a letter dated
In a Decision dated
Medical science relative to the claimed ailments
provides that:
“Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine-related
cancer. The outlook for patients with
thyroid cancer is excellent in that safe and effective therapy is available in
most cases. A lump (nodule) in the
thyroid is the key sign of its presence.
Most thyroid cancers do not cause any symptoms, and only rarely do they
cause pain, difficulty in swallowing, or hoarseness.”
Thyroid cancer is more common in people who have a
history of exposure of the thyroid gland to radiation, have a family history of
thyroid cancer, and are older than 40 years old.”
To warrant compensability of an ailment and its
resulting disability, sickness, or death under P.D. 626, as amended, Rule III,
Section 1(b) thereof, specifically provides that: (1) The ailment must be
listed by the ECC as an occupational disease. (2) There must be a showing by
substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the ailment is caused or
increased by the employees’ work and working conditions.
Appellant’s ailment, Thyroid cancer is not an
occupational disease under Annex “A” of the aforementioned rule. Under the increased risk theory, compensation
may still be had, provided substantial proof is shown that the risk of
contracting the ailment was caused or increased by the nature of his work and
working conditions.
In the case at bar, there is no indication that the
ailment was brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of his
job. In fact, the records of his case
merely asserted that it was his work as a Teacher that caused him to contract
the ailment. However, appellant offered
no evidence that would establish a causal link between the ailment and his
work. Such allegations of appellant
would not constitute work-connection.
There must be some real and concrete evidence that would link the
ailment to appellant’s nature of work and working conditions, which appellant
however, failed to satisfy with.
Based on medical science, the ailment, Thyroid cancer
is more common in people who have a history of exposure of the thyroid gland to
radiation, have a family history of thyroid and are older than 40 years of
age. These are the factors that medical
authorities of this Commission believed have caused appellant’s ailment and the
same cannot be connected with his employment.
Thus, the action taken by the respondent System is well taken.[5]
On
In a Decision dated
The Court of Appeals did not agree
with the ECC’s opinion stating that respondent’s
ailment was caused by the following factors:
family history of thyroid cancer; a history of exposure of the thyroid
gland to radiation; the victim is older than 40 years old. According to the Court of Appeals, these factors
just enumerated are merely the specific situations or “risk factors” that
increase an individual’s chance of developing said ailment. Even as respondent’s age is a risk factor, as
he was 43 years old during his first operation, still the ECC erred in
surmising that his ailment is attributable to his age, and not to his
work. The appellate court also cited an
authority stating that some persons exposed to the said risk factors do not get
thyroid cancer and that other persons who get the disease have none of the said
risk factors. In other words, persons
exposed to the risk factors react differently.
It concluded that respondent’s illness could have been brought about by a
combination of causes including that to which respondent was exposed, i.e., the strenuous use of his vocal
cords when he trained his students for declamation and his exposures to
chemicals such as muriatic acid and paints when respondent
supervised the cleaning of the comfort rooms and when he painted the classrooms
every summer vacation.
Hence, the instant recourse.
Petitioner maintains that the Court
of Appeals decided the case based on the principles of aggravation and
presumption of compensability, which principles have been abandoned by the
passage of Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, thus, deciding the same
contrary to law and jurisprudence. It argues
that the intention of the law is that the work or working condition itself
should cause the disease and not merely aggravated what was already being
suffered by the claimant.
Petitioner also posits that the
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals was not supported by positive
evidence proving that the claimant’s working conditions caused his ailment,
there being none presented by respondent, except his bare allegations to
support his claim.
Furthermore, petitioner maintains
that respondent’s exposure to paints and muriatic
acid could not have caused his disease as exposure to radiation, which is one
of the risk factors in contracting thyroid cancer, is not the same as exposure
to paints and muriatic acid.
There is no merit in the petition.
Section 1(b) of Rule III of the Implementing
Rules of Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, provides:
For the sickness and the resulting disability or death
to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease
listed under Annex “A” of these Rules with the conditions set therein
satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions.
Based on the foregoing Rule, for the
sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the claimant
must prove that (a) his/her sickness was the result of an occupation disease
listed under Annex “A” of the Rules of Employees Compensation, or (b) the risk
of contracting the disease was increased by his/her working conditions.
This increased risk theory can be
made applicable in compensation cases, when the claimant can adduce reasonable
proof of the connection between his work and the cause of the disease, or that
that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant’s
working conditions.[6] Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to
claims for compensation.[7] The degree of proof required under
Presidential Decree No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”[8]
What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal
relation.[9]
Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded, especially where there is
some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection.[10]
It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen’s claim is based is
probable since probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.[11]
Respondent was diagnosed as having
thyroid cancer. Although this disease is
not one of those listed as Occupational Diseases under Annex “A” of the ECC
Rules, respondent may nonetheless be entitled to compensation if he can prove
that the risk of contracting thyroid cancer was increased by his working
conditions.
While medical research has pinpointed
the risk factors which increase an individual’s chance of acquiring thyroid
cancer, namely: (1) exposure of the thyroid gland to radiation; (2) family history
of thyroid cancer; and (3) advanced age, which ECC claims to be the sole risk
factors that cause thyroid cancer, medical experts, however, have admitted that
the exact causes of this disease escape their scrutiny, thus:
No
one knows the exact causes of thyroid cancer. Doctors can seldom explain why
one person gets this disease and another does not. x x x. (NATIONAL CANCER
INSTITUTE, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, www.cancer.gov.)[12]
In fact, some experts are bewildered
by the phenomenon that there are individuals who have these risk factors yet do
not develop thyroid cancer. Thus, the
following observations:
Many patients naturally want to know “Why did I get
thyroid cancer?” Most patients have no
known risk factors or family history and were often previously in good
health. Scientists and physicians do not
have good answers to this question yet, but many research programs are looking
into this issue. A substantial number of
thyroid cancers appear to exhibit genetic abnormalities in one or more
chromosomes, but the reason for these types of chromosomal abnormalities
remains obscure. (www.mythroid.com.)[13]
It is further observed:
Most
people who have known risk factors do not get thyroid cancer. On the other hand, many who do not get the disease
have none of these risk factors.
(NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH,
www.cancer.gov.)[14]
From the foregoing disquisitions, it
is notable that experts are open to the probability that development of thyroid
cancer may be increased largely by any other causes such as that to which
respondent was exposed while carrying out his duties, such as: (1) his constant
involvement in the training of his students in declamation and oratory contests
wherein his vocal cords were extremely utilized; (2) painting the classrooms
during vacation; and (3) long exposure to and frequent inhalation of muriatic acid while supervising the cleaning of the school
comfort rooms. With these special tasks
being performed by respondent and his continued exposure to a detrimental work
environment and the constant fatigue that his body accumulated, the strong
probability that respondent’s thyroid cancer developed in the process is not
far-fetched. We thus find that the
probability of petitioner contracting the disease in his workstation has been
substantiated. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:
We find it probable that [respondent], indeed, develop
thyroid cancer through strenuous use of his vocal chords like when he trained
his students for local and division-wide declamation and oratorical
competitions.
x x x
We find it also probable that [respondent’s] chances of developing thyroid
cancer was aggravated when he was regularly exposed to chemicals such as muriatic acid and paints which, in turn, caused the
constant irritation of his throat.[15]
There is no dispute that Presidential
Decree No. 626, as amended, abandoned the presumption of compensability and the
theory of aggravation prevalent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Despite such abandonment, however, the present law has not ceased to be an
employees’ compensation law or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of
the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails, and the official
agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social
justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding
claims for compensability, especially in light of the compassionate policy
towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances.[16] Moreover, we are not talking here of mere
presumption or theory, but probabilities based on substantial proofs.
Respondent merits this compassion
considering that he has been suffering and incurring medical expenses since
1980; and after having been forced to give up his teaching vocation, he is now
totally dependent upon his children for meager support. Now, he totally depends on a tube inserted in
his esophagus for normal breathing.
After 30 years of dedicated public service, respondent deserves the compassion
that the fundamental law extends to the working class, especially to disabled
public servants.
WHEREFORE, the
petition for review is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
dated
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose
L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 36-49.
[2] Rollo, pp. 51-54.
[3] CA rollo, p. 31.
[4] Rollo, p. 52.
[5]
[6] Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin, G.R. No.
144665,
[7] Bonilla v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 162, 168 (2000).
[8] Castor-Garupa v. Employees Compensation
Commission, G.R. No. 158268,
[9]
[10] Government
Service Insurance System v. Valenciano, G.R. No.
168821,
[11] Castor-Garupa v. Employees Compensation Commission, supra note 8 at 180.
[12] Rollo, p. 42.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] GSIS
v. Cuanang, G.R. No. 158846,