Santos v.

Employees Compensation Commission

221 SCRA 182
Permanent Total Disability
FACTS
Francisco Santos was employed as welder at the Philippine Navy and its Naval Shipyard as early as
March 22, 1955. He spent the last 32 years of his life in the government service, the first year as a welder
helper and the last two years as shipyard assistant. Francisco was admitted at the Naval Station Hospital
in Cavite City. His case was diagnosed as bleeding Peptic Ulcer disease (PUD), cholelithiasis and
diabetes mellitus. On January 11, 1987, he died, the cause of which as indicated in the Death Certificate
was liver cirrhosis.
Mrs. Carmen A. Santos filed a claim for the death benefit of her husband, Francisco, pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. However, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
denied the claim on the ground that upon proofs and evidence submitted, Francisco's ailment cannot be
considered an occupational disease as contemplated under P.D. 626, as amended. Mrs. Santos then
sought the assistance of the Commander of NASCOM, PN, who in turn wrote the GSIS requesting for a
favorable action on her claim. Said letter also substantiated petitioner's claim that her husband's duties as
Senior Welder, caused him to be exposed to heat and inhalation of burning chemical substances and gas
fumes coming from burning welding electrodes.
Despite such endorsement, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, upon claim of the
GSIS that Francisco's job as a welder would instead cause lung disease rather than liver cirrhosis.
On appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC), the Commission affirmed the denial of
the GSIS on petitioner's claim.

ISSUE
Whether or not the death of Francisco Santos due to liver cirrhosis is compensable?

RULING
YES. The law defines compensable sickness as any illness definitely accepted as occupational disease
listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of
contracting the same is increased by the working conditions. For sickness and the resulting death of an
employee to be compensable, the claimant must show either: (1) that it is a result of an occupational
disease listed under Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation with the conditions set
therein satisfied; or (2) if not so listed, that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working
conditions. Cirrhosis of the liver is not listed as an occupational disease.
We do not pretend to be an expert in the realm of medical discipline. However, we cannot discount the
fact that the cause of death of petitioner's husband could very well be related to his previous working
conditions. Even the Commission volunteered the theory that post necrotic cirrhosis show that of the
many types of advanced liver injury, one cause may be due to toxins. As a welder, Francisco was
exposed to heat, gas fumes and chemical substances coming from the burning electrodes caused by
welding. Generally, the metal burned is iron. In the course thereof, other compounds and oxides, such as
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur and phosphorus, may be emitted in the process of welding,
depending on the kind of material used and extent of corrosion of the metal worked on. These vaporized
metals are inhaled by the welder in the process and significantly in this case, Francisco had to do welding
jobs within enclosed compartments. These are industrial hazards to which Francisco was exposed. And
in the long course of time, 32 years at that, his continuous exposure to burned electrodes and chemicals
emitted therefrom would likely cause poisoning and malfunction of the liver.
While the presumption of compensability and theory of aggravation under the Workmen's Compensation
Act may have been abandoned under the new Labor Code, the liberality of the law in general in favor of
the working man still prevails. The Employees' Compensation Act is basically a social legislation designed
to afford relief to the working man and woman in our society. The Employees' Compensation
Commission, as the agency tasked with implementing the social justice mandate guaranteed by the
Constitution, should be more liberal in resolving compensation claims of employees especially where
there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection to the cause of death. The policy is to
extend the applicability of PD 626 to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under
the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the state to give maximum aid and protection to
labor.
Narazo v. Employees Compensation Commission
181 SCRA 874
Permanent Total Disability

FACTS
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.
Narazo died at the age of fifty seven (57). He was thereafter diagnosed to be suffering from "obstructive
nepropathy due to benign prostatic hypertrophy", commonly known as "Uremia.”
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."
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of said decision, claiming that although the cause of her husband’s
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.

ISSUE
Whether or not the death of Geronimo Narazo due to Uremia is compensable?

RULING
YES. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
The cause of death of petitioner’s 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.