Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83662:57764&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:26:24+00:00

Document:
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. JOSE M. CAPACITE, Respondent.
This is an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court of the decision1 dated August 4, 2011 and the resolution2 dated November 24, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 116030. The appealed decision reversed and set aside the Decision dated June 29, 2010 of the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), which denied the claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 (PD 626)3 filed by Jose M. Capacite (Jose).
The CA further ruled that Jose was no longer required to provide evidence that would directly connect the deceased’s illness with her working conditions; that it was enough that the nature of her employment contributed to the development of the disease. As a bookkeeper, the CA assumed that Elma had been exposed to voluminous dusty records and other harmful substances that aggravated her respiratory disease.
GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its resolution dated November 24, 2011. The GSIS now comes before us for a final review.
THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT METASTASIZED TO THE LUNGS IS AN AILMENT AKIN TO RESPIRATORY DISEASE UNDER ANNEX “A” OF P.D. NO. 626, AS AMENDED, OR THAT SUCH DISEASE IS WORK-RELATED.
THE CA ERRED IN APPLYING THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES SINCE THE LIMITED RESOURCES DERIVED FROM ECC CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD ONLY BE APPLIED TO LEGITIMATE CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
GSIS primarily argues that Elma’s illness is not work-related. It is neither listed under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employee’s Compensation, nor was it caused by her working conditions. GSIS asserts that the liberal attitude to grant benefits should not be used to defeat the mandate of the GSIS to provide meaningful protection to all government employees who are actually working under hazardous circumstances.
PD 626, as amended, defines compensable sickness as “any illness 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 is increased by the working conditions.” Of particular significance in this definition is the use of the conjunction “or,” which indicates alternative situations.
Based on this definition, we ruled in GSIS v. Vicencio12 that for sickness and the resulting death of an employee to be compensable, the claimant must show either: (1) that it is a result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation with the conditions set therein satisfied; or (2) if not so listed, that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions.
While item 17, Annex “A” of the Amended Rules of Employee’s Compensation considers lung cancer to be a compensable occupational disease, it likewise provides that the employee should be employed as a vinyl chloride worker or a plastic worker. In this case, however, Elma did not work in an environment involving the manufacture of chlorine or plastic, for her lung cancer to be considered an occupational disease.13 There was, therefore, no basis for the CA to simply categorize her illness as an occupational disease without first establishing the nature of Elma’s work. Both the law and the implementing rules clearly state that the given alternative conditions must be satisfied for a disease to be compensable.
We also do not find that Elma’s cause of death was work-connected. As we earlier pointed out, entitlement to death benefits depends on whether the employee’s disease is listed as an occupational disease or, if not so listed, whether the risk of contracting the disease has been increased by the employee’s working conditions.
Granting, however, that the only cause of Judge Vicencio’s death is lung cancer, we are still one with the CA in its finding that the working conditions of the late Judge Vicencio contributed to the development of his lung cancer.
It is true that under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, lung cancer is occupational only with respect to vinyl chloride workers and plastic workers. However, this will not bar a claim for benefits under the law if the complainant can adduce substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness is increased or aggravated by the working conditions to which the employee is exposed to.
The rule is that the party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.16 Proof of direct causal connection is not, however, indispensably required. The law merely requires substantial evidence – such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that the claimant’s employment contributed, even if to a small degree, to the development of the disease.17 Thus, there is no requirement that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of a claimant’s illness for the latter to be entitled to the benefits provided for.18 However, it is important to note that adequate proof must be presented to substantiate the claim for death benefits.
In Raro v. Employees' Compensation Commission,20 we stated that medical science cannot, as yet, positively identify the causes of various types of cancer. It is a disease that strikes people in general. The 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 no difference whether the victim is employed or unemployed, a white collar employee or a blue collar worker, a housekeeper, an urban dweller or the resident of a rural area.
By way of exception, certain cancers have reasonably been traced to or considered as strongly induced by specific causes. For example, 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. In the absence of such clear and established empirical evidence, the law requires proof of causation or aggravation.
Aside from Jose’s general allegations proving the stressful duties of his late wife, no reasonable proof exists to support the claim that her respiratory disease, which is similar to lung cancer, was aggravated by her working conditions. The records do not support the contention that she had been exposed to voluminous and dusty records, nor do they provide any definite picture of her working environment.
We cannot, under this evidentiary situation, grant death compensation benefits solely on the assumption that she might have been exposed to deleterious substances while working as bookkeeper and accountant. We cannot likewise award compensation benefits on the basis of stress and fatigue, which are general consequences of working in practically all kinds of human activity; otherwise, we would unreasonably open the floodgates of compensability and render the purposes of a system like GSIS meaningless.
As an agency charged by law to manage and administer the limited trust fund of the government officials and employees, the GSIS has the difficult task of insuring all legitimate claims. Suffice it to say that a misplaced compassion for victims of diseases or injuries would prejudice the very same workers and their beneficiaries in times of need.
In sum, for insufficiency of evidence of causation or aggravation, we cannot grant Jose’s claim for compensation benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition. The decision and the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 116030 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The ECC decision dated June 29, 2010 is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.
1Rollo, pp. 34-40, penned by then CA Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court), concurred in by then CA Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now also a Member of this Court) and Justice Elihu A. Ybanez.
11 Approved under ECC Resolution No. 247-A, dated April 13, 1977.
12 G.R. No. 176832, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 138, 146.
16Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125986, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 315, 325; Coronel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103577, October 7, 1996, 263 SCRA 15, 35.
17 Supra note 12, at 146, citing La O v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-50918, May 17, 1980, 97 SCRA 780, 790.
18 Salalima v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 146360, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 715, 722-723, citing Salmone v. Employees' Compensation Commission and Social Security System, G.R. No. 142392, 26 September 2000, 341 SCRA 150.
19 197 Phil. 590, 593 (1982).
20 G.R. No. L-58445, April 27, 1989.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.