SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 80157. February 6, 1990.]

AMALIA NARAZO, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Provincial Governors Office, Negros Occidental), Respondents.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for petitioner.

DECISION

PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) dated 19
May 1987, 1 denying petitioners claim for compensation benefits under PD 626, as amended, for the
death of her husband, Geronimo Narazo.

Geronimo Narazo was employed for thirty eight (38) years as Budget Examiner in the Office of the
Governor, Province of Negros Occidental. His duties included preparation of the budget of the Province,
financial reports and review or examination of the budget of some provincial and municipal offices. chanrobles.com : virtual
law library

On 14 May 1984, Narazo died at the age of fifty seven (57). His medical records show that he was
confined three (3) times at the Doa Corazon L. Montelibano Hospital in Bacolod City, for urinary
retention, abdominal pain and anemia. He was thereafter diagnosed to be suffering from "obstructive
nepropathy due to benign prostatic hypertrophy", commonly known as "Uremia." cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner, as the widow of the deceased, filed a claim with the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) for death benefits for the death of her husband, under the Employees Compensation Law (PD 626,
as amended). However, said claim was denied on the ground that the cause of death of Narazo is not
listed as an occupational disease, and that there is no showing that the position and duties of the
deceased as Budget Examiner had increased the risk of contracting "Uremia." 2 Petitioner moved for
reconsideration of said decision, claiming that although the cause of her husbands death is not considered
as an occupational disease, nevertheless, his job as Budget Examiner which required long hours of
sedentary work, coupled with stress and pressure, caused him many times to delay urination, which
eventually led to the development of his ailments. The GSIS denied said motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, the Employees Compensation Commission affirmed the decision of the GSIS on the ground
that the ailments of the deceased could not be attributed to employment factors and as impressed by
medical experts, benign prostatic hypertrophy is quite common among men over fifty (50) years of age,
regardless of occupation, while uremia is a complication of obstructive nephtropathy due to benign
prostatic hypertrophy; 3 hence, this petition.

Petitioner avers that the nature, length of time, and circumstances of the occupation of the deceased were
not considered in determining whether the work of the said deceased had increased the risks of
contracting the ailments which caused his death. The work of the deceased, which required long sedentary
work under pressure, aggravated the risk of contracting the disease leading to his hospital confinement
and death. 4

In controversion, the ECC argues that petitioner failed to show proof that the disease which caused the
death of her husband is work-connected; and that no credence could be given to petitioners claim that
her husbands delayed urination gave rise to the development of his ailments, for lack of medical bases.
All that petitioner has shown, according to the ECC, are mere aggravation, and not work-connection
causes. 5

Rule III, section 1, paragraph 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, defines a "compensable
sickness" as any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the ECC or any illness
caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is increased
by working conditions. 6 The ECC is empowered to determine and approve occupational diseases and
work-related illnesses that may be considered compensable based on peculiar hazards of employment. 7

Thus, a sickness or death caused by said sickness is compensable if the same is listed as an occupational
disease. If it is not so listed, compensation may still be recovered if the illness was aggravated by
employment. However, it is incumbent upon the claimant to show proof that the risk of contracting the
illness was increased by his working conditions.

The death of petitioners husband was caused by "Uremia due to obstructive nephropathy and benign
prostatic hypertrophy," which is admittedly not among those listed as occupational diseases. 8 As per
finding of the ECC, "Uremia is a toxic clinical condition characterized by restlessness, muscular twitchings,
mental disturbance, nausea, and vomiting associated with renal insufficiency brought about by the
retention in blood of nitrogeneous urinary waste products." One of its causes is the obstruction in the flow
of urinary waste products. 9

Under the circumstances, the burden of proof was upon petitioner to show that the conditions under which
her deceased husband was then working had increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his
death.cralawnad

To establish compensability under the increased risk theory, the claimant must show proof of reasonable
work-connection, not necessarily direct causal relation. The degree of proof required is merely substantial
evidence which means such relevant evidence as will support a decision, or clear and convincing evidence.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable. To require proof of actual causes or factors which lead to an
ailment would not be consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice
guarantee in favor of the workers. 10 Although strict roles of evidence are not applicable, yet the basic
rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded. 11

The nature of the work of the deceased as Budget Examiner in the Office of the Governor dealt with the
detailed preparation of the budget, financial reports and review and/or examination of the budget of other
provincial and municipal offices. Full concentration and thorough study of the entries of accounts in the
budget and/or financial reports were necessary, such that the deceased had to sit for hours, and more
often that not, delay and even forego urination in order not to interrupt the flow of concentration. In
addition, tension and pressure must have aggravated the situation. In the case of Ceniza v. ECC, 12 the
Court held that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . . It may be added that teachers have a tendency to sit for hours on end, and to put off or postpone
emptying their bladders when it interferes with their teaching hours or preparation of lesson plans. From
human experience, prolonged sitting down and putting off urination result in stagnation of the urine. This
encourages the growth of bacteria in the urine, and affects the delicate balance between bacterial
multiplication rates and the host defense mechanisms. Delayed excretion may permit the retention and
survival of micro-organisms which multiply rapidly, and infect the urinary tract. These are predisposing
factors to pyelonephritis and uremia. Thus, while We may concede that these illnesses are not directly
caused by the nature of the duties of a teacher, the risk of contracting the same is certainly aggravated by
their working habits necessitated by demands of job efficiency." cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the foregoing circumstances, we are persuaded to hold that the cause of death of petitioners
husband is work-connected, i.e. the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the nature of the
work, so much so that petitioner is entitled to receive compensation benefits for the death of her husband.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Employees Compensation Commission denying
petitioners claim for benefits under PD 626, as amended, arising from the death of her husband, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-47294. April 8, 1987.]

HILARIA DABATIAN, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (General

Services Department, Cagayan de Oro City), Respondent.

Mando Z. Tagarda and Longino G. Tagarda for Petitioner.

Nicasio S. Palaganas and Jose G. de Vera for respondent ECC.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAW; EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT; COVERAGE;
COMPENSABLE AILMENTS CONTRACTED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1975, THE DATE OF EFFECTIVITY OF P.D. 442
(NEW LABOR CODE); CASE AT BAR. The records show that petitioner died on July 3, 1976 when the old
compensation law had already been abrogated. No competent evidence whatsoever was submitted to
prove that Dabatians ailment was contracted prior to January 1,1975 in order to bring it under the
protective mantle of the old compensation law. There are no medical findings, affidavits, reports or any
other evidence that deceased suffered from pain or any discomfort prior to the effectivity of the New Labor
Code. No allegation was even made to this effect. True it is, that strict rules on evidence do not apply in
cases such as this and that all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor. However, We cannot over-
extend the limits of such rules. Justice and fair play dictate otherwise. The new law on compensation
should be applied to this case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY AND RULE ON AGGRAVATION OF ILLNESS

ABOLISHED; REASON AND PURPOSE. The present Labor Code, P.D. 442 as amended, abolished the
presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of employment,
the reason being "to restore a sensible equilibrium between the employers obligation to pay workmens
compensation and the employees right to receive reparation for work-connected death or disability . . . ."
It was found, and rightly so, that the old law, the Workmens Compensation Act, destroyed the parity or
balance between the competing interests of employer and employee with respect to workmens
compensation. The balance was tilted unduly in favor of the workmen since it was possible to stretch the
work-related nature of an ailment beyond seemingly rational limits.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF COMPENSABLE ILLNESS OR DISABILITY OR DISABILITY UNDER THE NEW
LABOR CODE. Under the present law, in order for the employee to be entitled to sickness or death
benefits, the sickness or death resulting therefrom must be, or must have resulted from either a) any
illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or b) any illness caused by
employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AILMENT CONTRACTED BY DECEASED NOT COMPENSABLE IN CASE AT BAR. Since
peptic ulcer is not included in the list of occupational diseases as drawn up by the Commission, then
petitioner has the burden of proving that the nature of her husbands work increased the risk of
contracting the disease. Aside from the undisputed fact that the deceased is a heavy coffee drinker, which
was his way of warding off sleepiness, no evidence was ever adduced by petitioner to bolster the theory
that her husbands work increased the risk of contracting the ailment. Being a heavy coffee drinker may
have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no longer a ground for compensation
under the present law. This Court takes notice of the fact that the conditions in this case are not peculiar
to the work mentioned herein. Many, if not most, employees are equally exposed to similar conditions but
have not been victims of peptic ulcer.

DECISION

GANCAYCO, J.:
A petition to review the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission dated June 27, 1977 in ECC
Case No. 0217 which affirmed the decision of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) denying
the claim for death benefits of Hilaria Dabatian, widow of the late Sigfredo A. Dabatian, was filed on
September 26, 1977. However, for failure to file the necessary docket fees, this Court denied the petition
in a Resolution dated September 30, 1977.

A Motion for Reconsideration together with a motion to litigate as pauper was filed by the petitioner and
this Court, in a Resolution dated November 11, 1977, gave due course to the petition and required the
parties to file simultaneous memoranda. The Employees Compensation Commission, which was not
formally impleaded as respondent in the petition, filed its memorandum and so did respondent GSIS.
Petitioner failed to file her memorandum. The case was submitted for decision on August 30, 1978.

The undisputed factual background as found by the ECC which should have been made the proper
respondent in this case, is as follows:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At the time of his death, Sigfredo A. Dabatian was employed as Garbage Truck Driver in the General
Services Department of the City Government of Cagayan de Oro City. As Garbage Truck Driver, he was
assigned mostly in the night shift. In fact, at the time of his death his time of duty started from 10:00
oclock at night to 6:00 oclock in the morning the next day. It was gathered from the evidence on record
that the deceased was a heavy coffee drinker which was his way of warding off sleepiness.

"Prior to his death, he was observed by his co-employees to have been getting paler and weaker while at
work until the time he collapsed and became unconscious while on his tour duty and was brought to his
residence by his companions. Despite hospitalization, he died two weeks later on July 3, 1976.

"A claim for income benefits under the Employees Compensation Program was filed by the widow, the
herein appellant. The Government Service Insurance System decided against the compensability of the
claim on the ground that decedents ailment, Peptic Ulcer, is not definitely accepted as an occupational
disease, as listed under the present law on compensation. Neither was there a showing that the same was
directly caused by his employment and that the risk of contracting the same was increased by the working
conditions attendant to the deceaseds employment." 1

The case was then elevated to the ECC which ruled that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Peptic ulcer, the deceaseds main ailment, is a sharply circumscribed loss of tissue resulting from the
digestive action of acid gastric juice. Aggravating factors are ingestion of alcohol, coffee, tea and cola
drinks. Cigarette smoking has also been documented to be a definite cause of delayed healing of peptic
ulcer. Some drugs also contribute to its occurrence. Another factor in the production of peptic ulcer is the
hereditary predisposition which seems to play a major role in the occurrence of peptic ulcer. Intractable
bleeding is a complication of peptic ulcer. Death will ensue due to irreversible shock as a result of a
bleeding peptic ulcer. (Principles of Internal Medicine by Harrison).

Upon evaluation based on generally accepted medical authorities, the deceaseds ailment was found not to
be in the least causally related to his duties and conditions of work. His ailment was principally traceable
to factors which were definitely not work-connected, specifically, his inherent predisposition to drinking
coffee heavily which could have aggravated his contraction of the disease resulting to his death. However,
aggravation of an illness is not a ground for compensation under the present compensation law." 2

On these considerations, the ECC found no sufficient basis to reverse the ruling of the GSIS denying
petitioners claim. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

The sole issue which the Court must determine is whether or not under the premises the death of Sigfredo
A. Dabatian is compensable.

The petition obviously addresses itself to the presumption of compensability and the principle of
aggravation which were sufficient grounds for entitlement under the Workmens Compensation Act. In
fact, all the cases cited by the petitioner were decided under the old compensation law.

The records show that petitioner died on July 3, 1976 when the old compensation law had already been
abrogated. No competent evidence whatsoever was submitted to prove that Dabatians ailment was
contracted prior to January 1,1975 in order to bring it under the protective mantle of the old
compensation law. 3 There are no medical findings, affidavits, reports or any other evidence that
deceased suffered from pain or any discomfort prior to the effectivity of the New Labor Code. No allegation
was even made to this effect. True it is, that strict rules on evidence do not apply in cases such as this
and that all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor. However, We cannot over-extend the limits of
such rules. Justice and fair play dictate otherwise. The new law on compensation should be applied to this
case.

The present Labor Code, P.D. 442 as amended, abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule
on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of employment, the reason being "to restore a sensible
equilibrium between the employers obligation to pay workmens compensation and the employees right
to receive reparation for work-connected death or disability . . . ." 4 It was found, and rightly so, that the
old law, the Workmens Compensation Act, destroyed the parity or balance between the competing
interests of employer and employee with respect to workmens compensation. The balance was tilted
unduly in favor of the workmen since it was possible to stretch the work-related nature of an ailment
beyond seemingly rational limits. 5

Thus, under the present law, 6 in order for the employee to be entitled to sickness or death benefits, the
sickness or death resulting therefrom must be, or must have resulted from either a) any illness definitely
accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or b) any illness caused by employment
subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.

Since peptic ulcer is not included in the list of occupational diseases as drawn up by the Commission, then
petitioner has the burden of proving that the nature of her husbands work increased the risk of
contracting the disease.

Aside from the undisputed fact that the deceased is a heavy coffee drinker, which was his way of warding
off sleepiness, no evidence was ever adduced by petitioner to bolster the theory that her husbands work
increased the risk of contracting the ailment.

Being a heavy coffee drinker may have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no
longer a ground for compensation under the present law.

This Court takes notice of the fact that the conditions in this case are not peculiar to the work mentioned
herein. Many, if not most, employees are equally exposed to similar conditions but have not been victims
of peptic ulcer.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied for lack of merit. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.