Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
GOVERNTMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, |
|
G.R. No. 178901 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
- versus- |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
MANUEL P. BESITAN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
November 23, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
In compensation
proceedings, the test of proof is probability, not absolute certainty; hence, a
claimant only needs to show reasonable work connection and not direct causal
relation.[1]
This Petition
for Review on Certiorari[2]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the May 10, 2007 Decision[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97407 ordering petitioner
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to pay respondent Manuel P.
Besitans (Besitan) claim for compensation benefits. Also assailed is the CAs July 7, 2007 Resolution[4]
denying the motion for reconsideration.
Factual
Antecedents
Petitioner GSIS is a social
insurance institution created under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 186,[5]
charged with the management and administration of the trust fund of the
Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) for government officials and
employees.[6]
Respondent
Besitan was employed by the Central Bank of the
1.
Heads a team
of examiners in the conduct of regular/special examination of rural banks;
2.
Submits
report of examination/memoranda to MB and other reports related to examination;
3.
Confers with
Head/Top Management of rural banks under examination;
4.
Monitors,
verifies, and analyzes various periodic and special reports required of rural
banks to ascertain, among others, compliance with pertinent laws and
regulations, and prepares reports corresponding thereto;
5.
Evaluates,
processes, and prepares memoranda/reports on various requests such as the
establishment of branches/banking offices and investments in allied
undertakings/subsidiaries/affiliates, both locally and abroad; as well as
prepares appropriate recommendations on requests/complaints received from the
public, etc.;
6.
Performs
related duties as may be assigned.[9]
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.[10]
Ruling of the
Government Service Insurance System
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,[11]
as amended. The GSIS, however, denied
the claim in a letter dated May 2, 2006.[12] Besitan sought reconsideration in a letter
dated June 6, 2006;[13]
but the GSIS denied the same in a letter dated June 20, 2006.[14]
Ruling of the
Employees Compensation Commission
Besitan elevated
the matter to the ECC and the case was docketed as ECC Case No.
GM-17449-1002-06.[15]
On November 16,
2006, the ECC issued a Decision[16]
affirming the denial by the GSIS of respondents claim. It said:
The appeal is not meritorious.
The appellant alleged that the nature and working
conditions of his employment caused or contributed to the development of his
kidney ailment. However, Harissons
Principles of Internal Medicine, Vol. 2, 15th edition shows
otherwise, to wit:
The causes of Glomerulonephritis
are the following:
Cause is not known (Idiopathic)
A response to a known antigenic stimulus such as the Streptococcal
antigenic component seen in Poststreptococcal Glomerulonephritis. Other
bacterial, viral and parasitic infections may also produce an antigenic
component. Some of these infections are Typhoid fever, Syphilis, Leptospirosis,
Toxoplasmosis, Varicella, Mumps, Measles, Schistosomiasis and Hepatitis B and C
infection.
May form part of a multisystem immune-complex disorder such as Lupus
nephritis, Henoch-Schonlein Purpura, Cryoglobulinemia, Bacterial Endocarditis,
Systemic Vasculitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis.
The appellant alleged that he was exposed to
tremendous pressures demanded by his job necessitating prolonged hours of work,
most of the time sitting for hours and even delaying or foregoing urination in
order not to disrupt the continuity of concentration on the job. He also alleged that during his field
assignments, mostly in remote provinces, he also experienced foregoing
urination and skipping of meals in order to rush the completion of his
examination reports. Unfortunately, his
bare assertions do not automatically make his ailment compensable. Awards for
compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions. The employee must present evidence to prove a
positive proposition (Orate vs. CA, G.R. No. 132761, March 26, 2003). The appellants habit of delaying his
urination should not be attributed to his work but to personal neglect of his
health.
Generally, a physicians report is the best
evidence of work-connection and be the basis for an award because the physician
is in the best position to judge possible causal relation between the illness
and the work performed. In this case,
the certificate issued by the appellants attending physician is silent under
the item which reads: Was the injury or illness directly caused by
the employees duties? Having
failed to find substantial evidence to establish work-connection in this case,
this Commission finds no sufficient cause to deviate from the decision of the
System denying appellants claim.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED and the claim is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.[17]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the
ruling of the ECC. The CA ruled that Besitan
is entitled to compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as amended, because his
ailment was aggravated by the nature of his work, as evidenced by the Medical
Certificate[18]
issued by Dr. Gregorio Suarez II, Bank Physician III of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.[19] Thus, the dispositive portion of the Decision
of the CA reads:
UPON THE
VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS,
the petition for review is GRANTED. The November 16, 2006 Decision of the
Employees Compensation Commission in ECC Case No. GM-17449-1002-06 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent
Government Service Insurance System is ORDERED
to pay the petitioner Manuel P. Besitans full claim for compensation benefits
under PD No. 626, as amended. Without costs in this instance.
SO ORDERED.[20]
GSIS filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[21]
dated July 17, 2007.
Issue
Hence, the
instant petition with the basic issue of whether Besitan is entitled to
compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as amended.
Petitioners
Arguments
GSIS contends
that Besitans ailment, Glomerulonephritis, 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.[22]
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.[23]
GSIS
also puts in issue the use of the word probably by
the CA in its
Decision[24] which
proves that the CA was not definite of its findings.[25]
GSIS claims that awards of compensation
must be based on substantial evidence, not on presumptions or speculations.[26]
Respondents
Arguments
Besitan admits
that his ailment is not listed as an occupational disease under PD No. 626, as
amended.[27] 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.[28]
He maintains that in claiming compensation benefits, certainty is not required,
only probability.[29]
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.[30]
He avers that in performing his duties and responsibilities, he had to travel
frequently to different barangays and provinces in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao;
that during his trips to these places, he had to ride provincial buses up to
8-10 hours; that while on the bus, he had to delay his urination; and that
during his stay in these places, he was constrained to drink deep well water
due to lack of sufficient potable water.[31]
He also asserts that his ailment could
have been caused by viral and bacterial infections which he could have acquired
when he was assigned to these remote places.[32]
Thus, he claims
that
his working condition
increased his risk of
contracting the
disease.[33]
The petition
lacks merit.
Section 1, Rule
III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation[34]
provides:
RULE III
Compensability
SECTION 1. Grounds
(a) For
the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury
must be the result of accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment. (ECC Resolution No. 2799, July 25, 1984).
(b)
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.
x x x x
Corollarily, for
the sickness or resulting disability or death to be compensable, the claimant
must prove either (1) that the employees 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.
Certainty is not required only probability
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.[35]
Only a reasonable proof of
work-connection, not direct causal relation, however, is required to establish
compensability of a non-occupational disease.[36]
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. [37]
Compensability proved by substantial evidence
Moreover, direct
and clear evidence, is not necessary to prove a claim.[38]
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.[39]
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.).[40]
When Besitan
entered the government service in 1976, he was given a clean bill of
health. In 2005, he was diagnosed with
End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis. It would
appear therefore that the nature of his work could have increased his risk of
contracting the disease. His frequent travels to remote areas in the country
could have exposed him to certain bacterial, viral, and parasitic infection,
which in turn could have caused his disease.
Delaying his urination during his long trips to the provinces could have
also increased his risk of contracting his disease. As a matter of fact, even the Bank
Physician of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Dr. Gregorio Suarez II, agreed that Besitans
working condition could have contributed to the weakening of his kidneys, which
could have caused his disease, to wit:
This is to certify that Mr. Manuel P. Besitan [is]
a Bank Examiner of BSP, whose duties [require] him to work over prolonged hours
and travel to remote places in the
He claims that during the delivery of his duties
he often [foregoes] urination and taking replenishment of water. At times, he claims that he has to eat and
drink what is available in the area [of his bank examination]. This could probably contribute to the
increase of uric acid in his system.
All these conditions could contribute to the
weakening of his kidney thereby [progressing] to the present condition of his
ESRD.[41]
Clearly, the
above-quoted Medical Certificate[42]
is sufficient to prove that the working condition of Besitan increased his risk
of contracting Glomerulonephritis. In
claims for compensation benefits, a doctors certification as to the nature of
a claimants disability deserves full credence because no medical practitioner
would issue certifications indiscriminately.[43] As we see it then, Besitan was able to prove
by substantial evidence his entitlement to compensation benefits under PD No.
626.
In closing, it
may not be amiss to add that the primordial purpose of PD No. 626 is to provide
meaningful protection to the workers against the hazards of disability or
illness; hence, a liberal attitude in favor of the employee and his
beneficiaries in deciding claims for compensation should be adopted.[44]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed May 10, 2007 Decision
and the July 17, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
97407 are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner
Government Service Insurance System is hereby ORDERED to pay respondent Manuel P. Besitan the compensation
benefits due him under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Government Service Insurance System v. De Castro, G.R. No. 185035, July 15, 2009, 593 SCRA 155, 170.
[2] Rollo, pp. 19-58 with Annexes A to D inclusive.
[3]
[4]
[5] AN ACT TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND TO APPROPRIATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR (Amended by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1146 and Republic Act No. 8291, otherwise known as The Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997).
[6] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] FURTHER
AMENDING CERTAIN ARTICLES OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 ENTITLED LABOR CODE
OF THE
[12] Rollo, p. 43.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
In the
case at bench, we believe that this probability exists. The petitioners job as
Bank Officer II required him to work for long hours, obliging him, most of the
time, to sit for hours on end, to forgo urination and to skip meals. And during
his field assignments in remote and depressed areas especially in
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Implementing Presidential Decree No. 626.
[35] Castor-Garupa v. Employees Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 158268, April 12, 2006, 487 SCRA 171, 180.
[36] Government Service Insurance System v. Cordero, G.R. Nos. 171378 & 171388, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 633, 640.
[37] Government Service Insurance System v. Corrales, G.R. No. 166261, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 230, 243-244.
[38]
[39]
[40] Rollo, p. 52.
[41]
[42]
[43] Republic
of the
[44] Government Service Insurance System v. Villareal, G.R. No. 170743, April 12, 2007, 520 SCRA 741, 746.