Carin v. Employees' Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Napoleon O. Carin, a Special Counsel, felt a severe pain in his left leg while retrieving case files (expedientes) for trial. He was subsequently diagnosed with ostemoyelitis and underwent surgery, requiring hospitalization. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a claim for income benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which was denied on the ground that his illness was neither occupational nor work-related, and the risk of contracting it was not increased by his employment. Reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC), which affirmed the GSIS denial. He then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that his illness, chronic ostemoyelitis, was compensable under the 'increased risk' theory of PD 626, supported by evidence of the incident occurring at his workplace and his physician's report.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner's illness, ostemoyelitis, is compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, despite not being an enumerated occupational disease. Whether the risk of contracting petitioner's illness was increased by his working conditions. Whether the presumption of compensability under the old law (Act 3428) applies to claims under Presidential Decree No. 626.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner's illness is compensable under PD 626: The Court affirmed the ruling of the ECC, holding that petitioner failed to submit substantial evidence to prove that his illness was caused by his employment or that the risk of contracting it was increased by his working conditions. Under PD 626, for an illness not listed as an occupational disease, proof must be adduced that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. The evidence presented did not establish a reasonable connection or direct causal relation between the ailment and the nature of his employment. On whether the risk of contracting the illness was increased by working conditions: The Court found that the evidence presented by the petitioner, including the physician's report and an affidavit attesting to the incident occurring at his workplace, did not sufficiently demonstrate that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting ostemoyelitis. While the incident occurred at work, this alone did not establish the necessary causal link or increased risk required for compensation under the law. On the applicability of the presumption of compensability: The Court rejected petitioner's contention that the rule under PD 626 revived the presumption of compensability found in the old law, Act 3428. The Court explicitly stated that the principle of presumption of compensability no longer obtains under the new law on Employees' Compensation (PD 626). Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish compensability, which the petitioner failed to do with substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
Under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, for an illness not listed as an occupational disease to be compensable, the claimant must adduce substantial evidence proving that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions. The presumption of compensability under the old law (Act 3428) no longer obtains.