De Jesus v. Employees' Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The late Ester P. de Jesus was employed by the Philippine National Railways (PNR) as a telephone operator from April 13, 1945, until her retirement on March 1, 1979. During her employment, she worked night shifts and experienced progressive weight loss, loss of appetite, weakness, fatigability, frequent urination, non-productive cough, and mild lumbar pains. She was hospitalized multiple times between November 10, 1978, and April 5, 1979, and was diagnosed with chronic pyelonephritis, diabetes mellitus, anemia, and modular pulmonary metastases (lung cancer). She passed away on June 20, 1979. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner Jesus de Jesus, the surviving spouse, filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The GSIS denied the claim, stating that the deceased's ailments were not occupational diseases under the Labor Code and that her position did not increase the risk of contracting these diseases. This decision was affirmed by the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) on January 15, 1981. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the ECC's decision, arguing that the deceased's working conditions, including continuous night shifts and exposure to offensive odors and dirty linens near her office, contributed to the development of her lung cancer and anemia. He relies on a clinical history and certification from the deceased's attending physician, Dr. Juan Pineda, who stated that the working hours sapped her strength and provided a groundwork for pulmonary metastases. The petition contends that the risk of contracting these diseases was increased by her employment. The case is brought before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the deceased's ailments (chronic pyelonephritis, diabetes mellitus, anemia, and modular pulmonary metastases) are compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, considering the evidence presented. Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved that the deceased's working conditions increased the risk of contracting the specified ailments, thereby establishing a causal link for compensability.
Ruling
The decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission affirming the denial of the claim for death benefits is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the deceased's ailments are compensable: The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove by competent evidence that the risk of contracting the diseases was indeed increased by the working conditions concomitant with the deceased's employment. The medical authorities cited by the respondents indicate that diabetes mellitus, anemia, chronic pyelonephritis, and nodular pulmonary metastases are not directly traceable to employment conditions, being either hereditary, complications of other diseases, or resulting from infection. The Court emphasized that the diseases suffered by the deceased are common to all individuals, regardless of employment status or nature of work, and are not inherently occupational diseases under the law. The Court also highlighted that the New Labor Code discarded the concepts of 'presumption of compensability' and 'aggravation' found in the old Workmen's Compensation Act. On whether the working conditions increased the risk: The Court noted that the petitioner's allegations regarding the effects of night shifts and exposure to odors were not substantiated by competent evidence. While the attending physician's certification suggested aggravation rather than direct causation, the Court emphasized that under the New Labor Code (P.D. 442, as amended), a mere allegation is not evidence. The law requires proof that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions, and this was not sufficiently established. Therefore, the diseases were not compensable as they were not proven to be work-related or to have had their risks increased by the employment.
Main Doctrine
Under the New Labor Code, for sickness to be compensable, it must be an occupational disease listed in Annex "A" of the Rules, or the risk of contracting the disease must be proven to have increased by the working conditions. The concepts of 'presumption of compensability' and 'aggravation' under the old Workmen's Compensation Act were discarded.