Mercado, Jr. v. Employees’ Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose P. Mercado, Jr. was employed by the City of Manila for 34 years, serving in various capacities including Laborer, Watchman, Filer-Helper, and Clerk II. He began to incur paid leaves of absence in January 1975 and was forced to retire on March 16, 1979, at the age of 60, due to an illness diagnosed as Vertebro-Basilar Insufficiency, suspected to be a brain tumor. He received retirement pay for his service. 2. Procedural History: Following his retirement and diagnosis, petitioner filed a claim for total disability benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The GSIS denied his claim, and a subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC). The ECC affirmed the GSIS's decision, finding that vertebro-basilar insufficiency was not an occupational disease and that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof that his working conditions increased his risk of contracting the ailment. This petition for review to the Supreme Court followed. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the ECC's decision, arguing that while his ailment, a brain tumor, is not listed as an occupational disease, the nature of his employment, particularly during the post-liberation period in Manila, exposed him to conditions that likely increased his risk of contracting the illness or aggravated it. He contends that requiring definitive proof of causation for an obscure disease like a brain tumor is impossible and would negate the constitutional principles of social justice and protection to labor. The petition asks the Supreme Court to set aside the ECC's decision and grant disability compensation, reimbursement for medical expenses, and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's illness, Vertebro-Basilar Insufficiency (R/O Intracranial Tumor), is compensable under Presidential Decree 626, as amended, despite not being listed as an occupational disease. Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved that the risk of contracting his ailment was increased by his working conditions. Whether the application of the Employees' Compensation Act negates compensability in this case, considering the abolition of the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission. The GSIS was ordered to pay the petitioner P12,000.00 as disability compensation, reimburse his medical and hospital expenses, and pay P1,200.00 as attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of the illness despite not being listed as an occupational disease: The Court held that the non-inclusion of vertebro-basilar insufficiency in the list of occupational diseases under Annex "A" of Presidential Decree 626, as amended, does not preclude compensability. Section 1(b) of Rule III of the Revised Rules on Employees’ Compensation explicitly states that if a sickness is not an occupational disease, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. The Court emphasized that actual proof of causation is not necessary, consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice guarantee. In cases like brain tumors, where the etiology is obscure, requiring absolute proof of causation would be impossible and would render the constitutional principles of social justice and protection to labor nugatory. The Court reiterated its ruling that in testing the relation between an injury or disease and employment, probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. On whether the petitioner sufficiently proved increased risk due to working conditions: The Court agreed with the petitioner that his work, particularly in his early years as a Laborer, Special Laborer, and Watchman in the City of Manila during the post-liberation period, exposed him to an increased risk of contracting viruses and chemical irritants. Manila was described as being in ruins, unsanitary, with a destroyed water system and no garbage collection system, creating an environment where such agents were abundant. The Court found the nature of the petitioner's work to be the probable cause of the contraction and/or aggravation of his disabling ailment, especially considering the obscure etiology of brain tumors. On the application of the Employees' Compensation Act and the abolition of presumptions: The Court acknowledged that the Employees' Compensation Act, under the New Labor Code, abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness, unlike the previous Workmen's Compensation Act. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Sulit v. ECC, where a definite finding was made that the ailment was not work-connected. In the instant case, the obscure etiology of brain tumors and the admitted inability of medical science to fully explain its causes and aggravating factors make it impossible to demand strict proof of causal connection. To enforce such an impossibility would contravene the constitutional mandate of social justice and protection to labor, particularly for those who have less in life. Therefore, the application of the Employees' Compensation Act did not negate compensability in this specific instance.
Main Doctrine
Even if an ailment is not listed as an occupational disease, it is compensable if the risk of contracting the disease is proven to have increased by the working conditions. In cases where the etiology of the disease is obscure, requiring absolute proof of causation is impossible and would negate the constitutional principles of social justice and protection to labor.