Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=83252:57252&amp;catid=1585&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:21:56+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189574, July 18, 2014 - ESTRELLA D. S. BAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Respondents.
ESTRELLA D. S. BAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Respondents.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Estrella Bañez (petitioner) assails the 4 November 2008 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103693, which dismissed her petition and affirmed the denial of her claim for death benefits by the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) in its 4 April 2008 Decision.2 Likewise subject of the petition is the 10 September 2009 Court of Appeals’ Resolution3 which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
From 9-15 April 2006, Baylon was confined at Manila Doctors Hospital due to fever, weakness, dysuria and flank pains. He was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary tract infection.5 About a month later or on 18 May 2006, he was confined again for seven (7) days for functional dyspepsia.6 On 9 June 2006, he was admitted at the Medical Center Manila on complaints of vomiting and weakness. He was diagnosed to be suffering from Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE).
Based on medical opinions of Dr. Castillo and Dr. Torres, petitioner filed a claim for death benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Law before the Social Security System (SSS).
Petitioner impugned the findings of the ECC in a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner initially moved for a 30-day extension to file a petition for review due to absence of counsel and pending acceptance of her case by the UP Office of Legal Aid. The Court of Appeals granted a 15-day extension so petitioner had until 15 June 2008 to file her petition for review.12 She filed the same on 4 July 2008.
In a Resolution dated 4 November 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review because it was filed out of time.
In the instant petition, petitioner explains that the petition for review before the Court of appeals was filed beyond the 15-day extension period because she was in the process of obtaining free legal assistance in the preparation of her appeal and she only received the Resolution of the Court of Appeals giving her only 15 days or until 15 June 2008 to file her petition on 26 June 2008. Petitioner urges the Court to relax the rules and dispose the case on the merits.
Petitioner argues in the main that the work of her husband as a Chemistry Laboratory Technician which involved chronic exposure to chemicals might have precipitated the latter’s illness and eventual death. Petitioner presented the Toxicologic Assessment made by Dr. Castillo, as well as the Medical Certificate prepared by Dr. Torres to support her claim. She insisted that the medical opinions of the two physicians, based on medical records and findings, constitute substantial evidence to back up her claim. She pointed out that the ECC should not have disregarded medical records and opinions solely on the ground that the nature of the illness was auto-immune. Citing jurisprudence, petitioner contends that medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially when there is some basis in facts for inferring a work-connection.
DLSU filed its Comment praying for the dismissal of the petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DLSU argues that it never participated in the proceedings and was never served summons in any form or manner or even apprised of any claim, motion or decision whether in the SSS, ECC or the Court of Appeals. Moreover, DLSU claims that petitioner’s claim for death benefits was directed towards the SSS with no allegation of any responsibility that DLSU may have for the same.
In its Comment, SSS defends the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the appeal, in that the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by the rules is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. SSS maintains that there is no probability, much less certainty, of establishing a causal relation between the disease in question which cause the subject member’s death and his actual duties during his employment. SSS asserts that petitioner failed to show relevant evidence to establish a causal relationship.
Petitioner had until 15 June 2008 to file her petition. Petitioner filed the petition only 4 July 2008. Even if the reckoning point is the extended period, the petition was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals simply applied the rule.
While there are instances when the Court has relaxed the governing periods of appeal in order to serve substantial justice, this was done only in exceptional cases.18 We find no compelling reason to justify the filing of the petition for review before the Court of Appeals beyond the reglementary period.
Just as significant, even if we grant petitioner’s prayer for a ruling on the merits of the case, denial of the petition cannot be avoided.
It is undisputed that SLE is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex “A” of the Rules on Employees’ Compensation. Thus, petitioner has to prove by substantial evidence the causal relationship between her husband’s illness and his working conditions.
On record, Baylon contracted SLE. There was nothing on the record which shows that Baylon was diagnosed with drug-induced lupus.
Furthermore, the toxicological report made mention of “certain drugs with chemical structures related to aromatic amines or substituted hydrazines, listed in the inventory of the school, can affect the immune system. This would include Benzenes, Naphthylamine, Toluene, Dinitrophenylhydrazine, etc.” However, these drugs were not proven to have been administered on Baylon. These substances which can induce the disease all pertain to drugs which are orally administered on the patient. There is no showing that the drugs given to Baylon had increased his risk of contracting Drug-Induced Lupus and SLE.
Once again, we reiterate our holding in Lorenzo v. Government Service Insurance System26 that while we sympathize with the petitioner, it is important to note that such sympathy must be balanced by the equally vital interest of denying undeserving claims for compensation. Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered by the law ignores the need to show a greater concern for the trust fund to which the tens of millions of workers and their families look to for compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases and deaths occur.
With respect to the inclusion of DLSU as respondent, we find that the Court of Appeals erred in impleading DLSU. The original case title before the ECC is, “Estrella D.S. Bañez v. Social Security System (De La Salle University),” to emphasize that DLSU is the Baylon’s employer. DLSU was not furnished a copy of the ECC’s Decision. When petitioner filed her motion for extension, as well as petition for review, she did not implead DLSU, but the Court of Appeals in its Decision and Resolution added DLSU as a respondent, without however furnishing it copies of the Decision and Resolution. However, the erroneous inclusion made by the Court of Appeals appears to be inadvertent and harmless. For clarification purposes, the case against DLSU should be dismissed in this case for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103693 dated 4 November 2008 dismissing the petition for review, and its Resolution dated 10 September 2009, which denied the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
12 See Resolution dated 16 June 2008. Id. at 83-86.
13Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
15Calipay v. NLRC, G.R. No. 166411, 3 August 2010, 626 SCRA 409, 416.
16Miel v. Malindog, G.R. No. 143538, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 119, 129-130 citing Sapitan v. JB Line Bicol Express, Inc., Lao Huan Ling/Baritua, 562 Phil. 817, 831-832 (2007); Sehwani Inc. and/or Benita’s Frites, Inc. v. IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., 562 Phil. 217, 227 (2007).
17Miel v. Malindog, id. citing Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 316 Phil. 371, 384 (1995).
18Boardwalk Business Ventures v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, 10 April 2013.
19 Gatus v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 174725, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 553, 564 citing Ortega v. Social Security Commission, 578 Phil. 338, 346 (2008).
20Government Service Insurance System v. Villareal, 549 Phil. 504, 507 (2007).
21Lorenzo v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 188385, 2 October 2013.
23 http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/systemic-lupus-erythematosus/risk-factors.html last visited 29 May 2014.
24Debaudin v. Social Security System, 560 Phil. 72, 82 (2007).
25 http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/systemic-lupus-erythematosus last visited 29 May 2014.
26 Supra note 21 citing Riño v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, 387 Phil. 612, 620 (2000); Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 511, 529 (1998).

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