De Leon v. Employees' Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Concordia M. de Leon filed a claim for income benefits under P.D. No. 626 for the death of her daughter, Caridad M. de Leon, who was employed as a nurse and later Assistant Professor II of Nursing at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) from November 16, 1952, until her retirement on January 31, 1976. Caridad died three days later, on February 3, 1976, at the age of 45. Caridad had undergone a modified radical mastectomy for ductal carcinoma on September 16, 1968, approximately fifteen years before her retirement. Four years later, on May 8, 1972, she underwent bilateral cophorectomy for recurrence of breast cancer. Her medical records indicated that since December 7, 1974, she had been in and out of the hospital due to breast cancer metastasis to the lung, bones, and brain. Her terminal confinement was from January 5, 1976, to February 3, 1976. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a claim for income benefits with the respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on June 8, 1976. The GSIS denied the claim on May 10, 1976, stating that breast cancer with lung metastasis was not an occupational disease and that Caridad's illness was not causally related to her work, nor was there sufficient evidence that her death was a direct result of her occupation. The GSIS denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC), which affirmed the GSIS decision on June 15, 1977. The Petition: Petitioner sought a reversal of the ECC's decision, arguing that her claim should be compensable.
Issue(s)
Whether the applicable law for the claim is the Labor Code (P.D. No. 626) or the old Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended). Whether the illness which caused the death of petitioner's daughter is compensable under the applicable law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) and DIRECTED the GSIS to pay petitioner the death benefit she would be entitled to under Act No. 3428, as amended, as well as the medical and surgical expenses including her doctor's bill in the aggregate amount of P 5,844.95.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law: The Court held that although Caridad M. de Leon expired after the effectivity of the Labor Code (January 1, 1975) and the claim was filed under the Labor Code, the governing law for her claim is the old Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended). This is because the illness, breast cancer, began long before the effectivity of the Labor Code, specifically before her mastectomy on September 16, 1968. The Court reiterated the principle that rights accrued under a statute survive its repeal, and therefore, the illness that supervened during employment prior to the Labor Code's effectivity is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court cited previous rulings in Vda. de Tumolva vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, Manahan vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, Balatero vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, and De Castro, Jr. vs. Republic to support this conclusion. The Court emphasized that the repeal of a statute does not impair vested rights, and it is immaterial that the disease resulted in death or disability after the New Labor Code's effectivity, as long as the illness was contracted prior to it. On the compensability of the illness: The Court found that the illness was compensable under Act No. 3428, as amended. It noted that Caridad's carcinoma of the breast first occurred after her employment began and was aggravated during her employment at the PGH, as evidenced by its metastasis. Under Act No. 3428, there is a statutory presumption of compensability when an illness supervenes during employment. Consequently, the employer (the Government) bore the burden of controverting this presumption with competent evidence showing that the illness was not work-connected or aggravated by her employment. The Court found that the government failed to discharge this burden. While the ECC cited medical literature discussing the causes of breast cancer, the Court found this discussion unsatisfactory and noted that the ECC mistakenly applied the provisions of the Labor Code, which has no presumption of compensability. The petitioner's evidence, suggesting exposure to microorganisms, viruses, and fumes from drugs and chemicals at the PGH, while not definitively proving causality, underscored the government's failure to overcome the presumption of compensability. The Court found the case analogous to Avendaño vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, where a similar claim for breast cancer was held compensable under the old law due to the presumption of compensability.
Main Doctrine
The governing law for claims of compensation benefits where the illness began prior to the effectivity of the Labor Code (January 1, 1975) is the old Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended), even if the claim was filed or the death occurred after the Labor Code's effectivity. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a statutory presumption of compensability once an illness supervened during employment, and the employer bears the burden of overcoming this presumption with competent evidence.