Orate v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norma Orate was employed by Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. as a machine operator from December 5, 1972. Her duties involved doffing, creeling, repairing breaks, and machine cleaning. On March 22, 1995, she was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma (breast, left). She underwent mastectomy, which incapacitated her, leading to her retirement at age 44. Procedural History: Petitioner applied for employees' compensation benefits with the Social Security System (SSS), which was denied as not work-related. SSS approved her claim as a sickness benefit for permanent partial disability. The Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the SSS denial, ruling that breast cancer was not an occupational disease and the risk was not increased by working conditions. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ECC, granting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428), holding that the illness must have intervened before January 1, 1975, and the employer failed to disprove the presumption of compensability. The CA later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, insisting that her disability should be compensated under the Labor Code, not the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that her claim should be compensable.
Issue(s)
What is the law applicable to petitioner's claim for disability benefits? Is she entitled under the applicable law to be compensated for disability arising from breast carcinoma?
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission dismissing the petitioner's claim for compensation benefits under the Employees' Compensation Program is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law: The Court held that the governing law for compensation claims is determined by the date the disease was contracted. The Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428) applies to illnesses contracted before January 1, 1975, while the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626, applies to those contracted on or after January 1, 1975. In cases where the claim was filed after P.D. No. 626's effectivity and there is no evidence of when the disease intervened, the presumption is that it was contracted after January 1, 1975, thus governed by the Labor Code. In this case, petitioner was diagnosed with breast cancer on March 22, 1995, and no evidence was presented regarding when she contracted the ailment. Therefore, the presumption is that her illness intervened when P.D. No. 626 was the governing law, and the provisions of the Labor Code apply. On compensability under the Labor Code: The Court ruled that for breast carcinoma to be compensable under the Labor Code, the claimant must prove by substantial evidence either that the sickness is an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Rules on Employees' Compensation or that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions. Breast cancer is not listed as an occupational disease. Petitioner's claims that lifting heavy objects and exposure to dyes increased her risk were unsubstantiated. The Court found that her allegations and the cited excerpts from an encyclopedia did not constitute substantial evidence to establish a causal relationship between her illness and working conditions. Awards cannot rest on speculations and presumptions; a positive proposition must be proven. The Court noted that while some cancers are strongly induced by specific causes, proof is required for others, which was not satisfied in this case. Therefore, despite the applicability of the Labor Code, her disability is not compensable.
Main Doctrine
The applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Labor Code to a claim for compensation benefits is determined by the date the claimant contracted the disease. For claims filed after January 1, 1975, without evidence of the contraction date, the presumption is that the disease was contracted after the effectivity of P.D. No. 626, thus governed by the Labor Code, which requires the claimant to prove by substantial evidence that the illness is an occupational disease or that the risk of contracting it was increased by working conditions.