59. ROSALES vs.

EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GSIS and DBP

FACTS
Rosales, at the time of his retirement on July 31, 1976, was an employee of DBP as a Collateral and File
Clerk. Prior to holding said position, he held the positions of clerk-typist, clerk stenographer and collection
clerk. On 6 to 10 April 1976, he was confined in the UST Hospital for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Rosales filed with GSIS a claim for employees' compensation under PD No. 626. His application was
denied. He twice moved to reconsider the denial of his claim with the GSIS, but the latter denied both
motions for reconsideration.

On appeal, Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the denial in toto.

ISSUE: W/N Rosales is entitled to such claim? NO.

RULING
Under PD No. 626 [which took effect on 1 January 1975] for an illness to be compensable, it must be one
definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by
employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same was increased by
working conditions.

The ECC denied the claim because Rheumatoid Arthritis was not an occupational disease, and that, as
required by law, Rosales failed to show proof that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his
working conditions. In denying, petitioner's claim, the ECC properly applied PD No. 626.

In workmen's compensation cases, the governing law is determined by the date on which the claimant
contracted his illness. Thus, where an ailment supervened before the new Labor Code took effect, the
governing law is the old Workmen's Compensation Act. On the other hand, where an ailment occurred
after 1 January 1975, the new law on Employees' Compensation applies.

Applying the foregoing rules to the present case, we find nothing in the allegations as to when Rosales
contracted the disease. For failure to do so, and having filed his claim under PD. No. 626, the presumption
is that he contracted the disease after the effectivity of PD No. 626 on 1 January 1975.
60. VILLONES vs. ECC, GSIS (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE)

FACTS
Rolando M. Villones was employed as a secondary school teacher in the Department of Education and
Culture assigned at Dayhagan Barrio High School. On September 2, 1975, he died of pulmonary
tuberculosis.

His father [herein petitioner] filed with the GSIS a claim for income benefits for the death of his son under
the provision of PD No. 626, attaching thereto the following documents:

a photocopy of the decedent's death certificate

a medical certificate showing that deceased was on sick leave from December 4 to 20, 1972 due
to influenza;
a medical certificate issued by the Municipal Health Officer certifying that he examined Rolando
M. Villones on July 19, 1972 and found him to be physically and mentally fit for employment;
a certification from the principal of the deceaseds duties as secondary school teacher

On March 9, 1976, the GSIS Medicare-Employees' Compensation denied the claim on the ground that
although Pulmonary Tuberculosis was listed as an occupational disease, petitioner failed to satisfy other
conditions in order to be compensable; that is the employee manifesting this disease should have an
occupation involving close and frequent contact with a source or sources of tuberculosis infection by
reason of employment and the nature of the deceaseds duties as teacher and the working conditions
did not expose him to such sources.

On February 17, 1977, the Employees' Compensation Commission (En Banc) affirmed the denial.

"Pulmonary Tuberculosis having been ruled out as an occupational disease in the occupation in
which the deceased was engaged in, appellant is repudiating pulmonary tuberculosis as the cause
of death. Appellant insisted that the Municipal Health Officer might have erred in indicating in the
Death Certificate that his son died of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, there being no autopsy
conducted

"As correctly ruled by the GSIS, the nature and conditions of the deceased's employment could
have just aggravated his physical condition. Aggravation of a pre-existing illness is, however, no
longer compensable under the present Employees' Compensation Program"

ISSUE: W/N Villones is entitled to the claim for compensation of his sons death? YES

RULING:
Considering the undisputed nature of the deceased's employment, it becomes inevitable for him to be in
constant contact with people who may be afflicted with PTB, which is a highly communicable disease, and
it is not surprising that he should contract tuberculosis so that from December 4 to 20, 1972 he was forced
to go on sick leave. When he was able to resume work, he was again exposed to same working conditions
thus aggravating his illness until he suddenly died on September 2, 1975 of sever hemoptysis due to PTB.

It must be pointed out that as early as December 4 to 20, 1972, the deceased Villones was already entitled
to disability benefits under Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, because his
illness prevented him from reporting to his work for more than three (3) days; and under such a situation,
his employer (Department of Education and Culture) was obligated under Section 37 of the same Act to
file a notice of illness with the Workmen's Compensation Commission and to manifest its intention of
whether or not to controvert his right to compensation.

There is no showing that respondent employer has complied with its duty under Sections 37 and 45 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, of filing with the Workmen's Compensation Commission a
notice of the initial illness of its employee, Rolando Villones, as well as his subsequent death on September
2, 1975, and of controverting the right to compensation within the prescribed period of fourteen (14) days
from the occurrence of the disability or death, or within ten (10) days from knowledge thereof.

It cannot be denied that respondent employer had knowledge of the illness of the deceased Villones
because he applied for sick leave from December 4 to 20, 1972, as well as knowledge of the subsequent
death of Rolando Villones on September 2, 1975 because he died on a regular working day; hence, the
fact of death could not have escaped the notice or knowledge of the principal and or supervisor. Such
knowledge by the principal and/or supervisor, being agents of the respondent employer, is deemed in law
as knowledge of the respondent employer.

Failure to comply with said sections constitutes a renunciation of the employer's right to controvert the
claim, resulting in the waiver of all its non-jurisdictional defenses, such as the non-compensability of the
claim.

Finally, the grant of compensation benefits to herein petitioner will not be impaired even if he (petitioner
himself) entertains doubts as to the real cause of the death of his son when he stated that no autopsy was
made nor was there anybody who actually examined the deceased prior to or after his death. At any rate,
pulmonary tuberculosis is concededly one of the causes of hemoptysis. Even unexplained deaths, the
occasion and circumstances of which are unknown or undetermined, are usually deemed compensable,
as long as there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection, a causal relation between the
death and the employment. And, in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, the same shall be resolved
in favor of the laborer (Art. 4, PD No. 442, as amended; Art. 1702, New Civil Code).
61. ZOSIMO CAPACIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools)

FACTS:
Capacio was an elementary grade public school teacher assigned in Barrio Matambong, Palapag, Northern
Samar. He started working as a substitute teacher and progressed to that of a regular teacher. His service
covered a span of 33 years.

Since March 19, 1973, he had been suffering from peptic ulcer, hypertension and schistosomiasis. On
August 13, 1974, he retired at the age of 60.

Immediately upon retirement he was called to the Workmen's Compensation Commission Regional Office
in Samar for medical check-up. After the lapse of almost a month, he was treated up to September 15,
1974.

An EKG was conducted on August 13, 1974 [his last day of teaching]. Another EKG examination of
petitioner was made on July 22, 1975.

He sought workmen's compensation after this disabling sickness. He was awarded the amount of
P5,693.57 as sickness compensation and reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses on November
24, 1975.

OSG filed a motion for reconsideration. The Workmen's Compensation Commission, upon review,
reversed the aforesaid award:

"claimant had alleged to have been sickon March 19, 1973 and stopped working on August 13,
1974. It is sad to note however, that nowhere in the records could [do] we find any documentary
evidence which would substantiate claimant's allegations[T]he first and last treatment was
conducted only on September 15, 1974, which was one month after the employer-employee
relationship had ceased to exist. [While EKG results are attached in record], the same should not
be given any evidentiary value, it appearing that it was conducted only last July 22, 1975. Of
course, there is a showing that claimant was on leave from July 22 to August 13, 1974, there is no
showing that it was on account of the illness subject of this claim.

This Commission is further convinced that claimant retired not as a result of any disabling illness,
but rather with the sole aim and purpose of enjoying the benefits afforded him by the Retirement
Law after rendering 33 years of service with the government and reaching the age of 60."

ISSUE: W/N Capacio is entitled to his claim? YES

RULING:
The records of the case reveal that the petitioner suffered from peptic ulcer, hypertension and
schistosomiasis. Feeling that he could not withstand the rigors and continuous strain of his teaching job
with his assignment in a remote barrio which entailed the stamina of walking for one and one-half hours,
he retired on his 60th birthday. All along he could have served the whole length of a normal civil service
tenure of work with the retirement age of 65. His daily hike from the town proper passing through rivers,
creeks, streams and rough roads, trails and woodland affected his health.

There is on record the fact that after retirement, he immediately filed his claim for sickness compensation
with the Department of Labor Regional Office No. 9, Workmen's Compensation Unit in Tacloban City. He
submitted himself to medical examination by the physician of the Workmen's Compensation Unit. After
this examination, the medical officer studied his case and then ordered that the petitioner be hospitalized
in Tacloban City.

These facts show that the illness of the petitioner occurred during the course of his employment.

The petitioner took the Commission to task for not taking into consideration the mandatory provision of
Section 45, Act No. 3428, as amended, wherein the employer (in this case the Bureau of Public Schools)
is given up to 14 days from disability, or 10 days after it had knowledge of the alleged illness, to controvert
the right of the claimant; otherwise, by operation of law, the employer waives or renounces the right to
dispute its liability for said compensation.

Regarding the point of presumption of compensability, we had occasion to rule that the presumption of
compensability shifts the burden of proof on the employer to show the contrary. Where the illness
supervened during the time of employment, there was rebuttable presumption that the illness arose out
of or at least was aggravated by the employment.

As to the contention that petitioner's illness was not work connected as he got sick after his retirement:
There is no proof that the respondent was able to overcome the presumption under Section 44 of Act No.
3428 that the illness or injury either arose out of, or was at least aggravated by his employment.
Moreover, the petitioner's ailment occurred while he was an employee a teacher working under the
hazardous conditions of that far-flung town. There is a showing that his illness was caused or was
aggravated by his teaching duties. He got his schistosomiasis from his daily hike to his place of work, the
barrio school.

As regards a teacher's ailment, We had occasion to say that:

"Presumption of compensability is rendered conclusive by reason of employee's employment as

barrio school teacher and working conditions which increased the risk of contracting her illness
and failure of employer to rebut presumption.

"Reasonable work connection, not direct causal relation between the disease and employment is
the only requirement to establish compensability, and actual proof of causation is not necessary
to justify compensability."

In one of our latest rulings on employment compensation of teachers, We opined:

"The teachers shall be protected against the consequences of employment injury in accordance
with existing laws. The effects of the physical and nervous strain in the teacher's health shall be
recognized as compensable occupational diseases in accordance with existing laws."
62. ZOZOBRADO vs. ECC and GSIS (Ministry of Public Works)

FACTS:
Roque Zozobrado, petitioner herein, began working for the then Bureau of Public Highways at Cebu City
on October 20, 1958 as civil engineer aide.

On April 16, 1959, he was transferred to the then Bureau of Public Works at Marawi City where promoted
to Associate Civil Engineer in 1961, Senior Civil Engineer in 1966, Supervising Civil Engineer in 1968, and
District Engineer on March 23, 1971 until he retired on September 1, 1979 from the Ministry of Public
Works at age 63 due to glaucoma and cataract.

Petitioner filed a claim for total and permanent disability with the GSIS based on the following clinical
history:
December 1967: glaucoma operation (OS) of the left eye.
August 1970: glaucoma operation (OD) of the right eye.
May 1978: he had an operation for "cataract, mature (OS)," and submitted himself for lens
extraction at the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City.

GSIS denied the claim on the ground that under PD No. 626 (as amended) glaucoma and cataract are not
occupational diseases.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. He averred that his eye ailment can be considered to have
emanated from his employment because his work entailed constant use of his vision.

GSIS reiterated its previous denial. It emphasized that on the basis of the evidence presented by petitioner
there is no showing that the ailment contracted directly arose or resulted from the nature of his
employment.

ECC, on appeal, affirmed the GSIS decision:

We took into consideration appellant's avermenthowever, [these] are not sufficient bases to
establish proof that appellant's risk of developing cataract was increased by his working
conditions. Senile cataract is an ailment to which all persons are exposed regardless of whether
they are employed or not, its etiology being attributed to degenerative changes or aging. While it
may be argued that 'cataract' is listed by the Commission as an occupational disease, appellant's
case cannot fall under this classification since his occupation did not subject him to frequent and
continued exposure to the glare or rays from molten glass or redhot metal which is the criterion
for compensability of cataract.

ISSUE: Is Zozobrado entitled to his claim? NO.

RULING:
The applicable law at the time petitioner contracted the cataract in 1978 is the Labor Code.

Section 1 (b), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation embodied therein explicitly
provides:

"SECTION 1.

xxx xxx xxx

 (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."

The doctrine of "presumptive compensability in the old Workmen's Compensation Law that when an
illness supervenes during the course of employment it is deemed to have either arisen out of or been
aggravated by petitioner's employment has been abandoned.

Under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, the present law on compensation, the listed occupational
diseases are compensable when the conditions contained therein are met, and certain diseases are
allowed to be compensable whenever the claimant can prove that the risk of contracting the disease is
increased by the conditions of the employment of the deceased. As to the degree of proof required, the
claimant must show at least by substantial evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely
by the conditions present in the nature of the job.

Petitioner's eye ailment is "cataract, senile OS" of the left eye.

Senile cataract is not a listed occupational disease. Neither does it have any causal connection with his
work as District Engineer in Marawi City. It is due to degenerative changes accompanying the aging
process. It is not generated by strain on the eyes, as petitioner claims. Nor was the risk of contracting it
aggravated by the nature of his duties or his working conditions. It is a physiologic process occurring after
the fourth decade of life and to which everyone is exposed whether employed or not. The claim for
disability benefits, therefore, was correctly denied by public respondents.