FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176832. May 21, 2009.]

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM , petitioner, vs . MARIAN

T. VICENCIO , respondent.

DECISION

PUNO , C.J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR
SP No. 74790 which set aside the Decision 3 of the Employees' Compensation
Commission (ECC) in ECC Case No. GM-14245-702. The ECC denied respondent
Marian T. Vicencio's (Mrs. Vicencio's) claim for the death bene ts of her husband, the
late Judge Honorato S. Vicencio (Judge Vicencio).
The facts are established.
Judge Vicencio entered government service in 1964 as a Legal Researcher of the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). In 1966, after passing the bar
examinations, he became an Assistant Attorney. He rose from the ranks until he was
promoted to Senior Bank Attorney, which position he held until his retirement from DBP
in 1985.
In 1987, Judge Vicencio re-entered government service as Assistant Fiscal for
the City of Manila. In 1992, he was appointed as Judge of Branch 27, Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila. In 1999, he was appointed as Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of
Branch 17, Manila and served as such until his death in 2001.
Records 4 show that on November 30, 2000, Judge Vicencio suffered loss of
consciousness due to pericardial effusion. He was admitted at the Makati Medical
Center where he was diagnosed with Adenocarcinoma of the Left Lung with
Metastases to Pedicardium. He underwent intravenous chemotherapy. He was
confined from November 30, 2000 to May 7, 2001.
On May 31, 2001, Judge Vicencio died. Per his Death Certi cate, 5 the immediate
cause of his death was Cardiopulmonary Arrest, and the antecedent cause was T/C
Fatal Arrythmia. No underlying cause of death was indicated in his Death Certi cate. He
was survived by his wife, respondent Mrs. Vicencio, and daughter, Mary Joy Celine
Vicencio.
Respondent Mrs. Vicencio applied for the death bene ts of her late husband with
petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) but her application was denied
by Mr. Marcelino S. Alejo, Manager of the GSIS Employees Compensation Department,
on the ground that the illness which caused Judge Vicencio's death is not considered
an occupational disease and there is no showing that his work as RTC Judge has
increased his risk of contracting said ailment. 6 Respondent Mrs. Vicencio led a
motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. 7
On June 17, 2002, respondent Mrs. Vicencio appealed to the ECC but the same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 was dismissed. 8 aCTHEA

Respondent Mrs. Vicencio led a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court with the CA. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision of the ECC as follows:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Petition is GRANTED . The
Decision of the Employees Compensation Commission, dated November 6, 2002,
in ECC Case No. GM-14245-702 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The GSIS
i s ORDERED to grant the claim for the death bene ts of Judge Honorato S.
Vicencio under the Employees Compensation Act. No costs. 9

Petitioner GSIS led a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by
the CA in its Resolution dated February 26, 2007. 1 0
Hence, this Petition.
The sole issue is whether or not respondent Mrs. Vicencio's claim for death
bene ts under Presidential Decree No. 626 (P.D. No. 626), as amended, is
compensable.
Petitioner GSIS argues that based on the medical records in this case, Judge
Vicencio's underlying cause of death was Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs with
Metastases. According to petitioner GSIS, the cause of death stated in his Death
Certi cate, Cardiopulmonary Arrest T/C Fatal Arrythmia, was a mere complication of
his lung cancer. However, the attending physician did not ll up the portion on the Death
Certi cate to indicate that the underlying cause (which was left in blank) was
Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs with Metastases. Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs is not an
occupational disease listed under the law. Pursuant to Annex "A" of the Amended Rules
on Employees' Compensation, lung cancer is occupational only with respect to vinyl
chloride workers and plastic workers. According to petitioner GSIS, respondent Mrs.
Vicencio failed to show by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the same
was increased by his working conditions.
On the one hand, respondent Mrs. Vicencio contends that per the Death
Certi cate of her husband, the cause of his death was Cardiopulmonary Arrest T/C
Fatal Arrythmia. According to respondent Mrs. Vicencio, the CA correctly found that the
requisites for cardiovascular disease to be compensable under paragraph (r) of ECC
Resolution No. 432 1 1 were satis ed; hence, the death of her husband is compensable.
HSEIAT

Respondent Mrs. Vicencio adds that assuming only lung cancer was the cause of
death of her husband, the same is still compensable. She argues that the CA correctly
held that the nature of work and the corresponding di culties brought about by Judge
Vicencio's duties and work contributed to the development of his illness.
We affirm the decision of the CA.
P.D. No. 626, as amended, de nes compensable sickness as "any illness
de nitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness
caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting
the same is increased by the working conditions". Under Section 1 (b), Rule III, of the
Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, for the sickness and the resulting
disability or death to be compensable, the same must be an "occupational disease"
included in the list provided (Annex "A"), with the conditions set therein satis ed;
otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the risk of contracting it is increased by
the working conditions. Otherwise stated, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees'
Compensation with the conditions set therein satis ed; or (2) if not so listed, that the
risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. DCaSHI

First, we hold that the CA correctly considered Cardiopulmonary Arrest T/C Fatal
Arrythmia in this case a cardiovascular disease — a listed disease under Annex "A" of
the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
The Death Certi cate of Judge Vicencio clearly indicates that the cause of his
death is Cardiopulmonary Arrest T/C Fatal Arrythmia. Whether, however, the same was
a mere complication of his lung cancer as contended by petitioner GSIS or related to an
underlying cardiovascular disease is not established by the records of this case and,
thus, remains uncertain.
It must be remembered that P.D. No. 626, as amended, is a social legislation
whose primordial purpose is to provide meaningful protection to the working class
against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of
income. Thus, the official agents charged by law to implement social justice guaranteed
by the Constitution should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding
claims for compensability especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring
a work-connection with the illness or injury, as the case may be. It is only this kind of
interpretation that can give meaning and substance to the compassionate spirit of the
law as embodied in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including their
implementing rules and regulations should be resolved in favor of labor. 1 2 DHSACT

Guided by this policy, we therefore hold that Cardiopulmonary Arrest T/C Fatal
Arrythmia, the cause of death stated in Judge Vicencio's Death Certi cate, should be
considered as a cardiovascular disease — a listed disease under Annex "A" of the
Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
Considering the stress and pressures of work inherent in the duties of a judge
and it was established that Judge Vicencio was doing work in his o ce a few days
immediately before the moment of his cardiac arrest, 1 3 we sustain the ndings of the
CA that the requisites for cardiovascular disease to be compensable under paragraph
(r) of ECC Resolution No. 432 are satisfied in the case at bar.
Granting, however, that the only cause of Judge Vicencio's death is lung cancer,
we are still one with the CA in its nding that the working conditions of the late Judge
Vicencio contributed to the development of his lung cancer.
It is true that under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees'
Compensation, lung cancer is occupational only with respect to vinyl chloride workers
and plastic workers. However, this will not bar a claim for bene ts under the law if the
complainant can adduce substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness is
increased or aggravated by the working conditions to which the employee is exposed
to. AaSHED

It is well-settled that the degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely
substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion". What the law requires is a reasonable
work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on
which the workman's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be
disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-
connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. 1 4 It is not required that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of a
claimant's illness to entitle him to the bene ts provided for. It is enough that his
employment contributed, even if to a small degree, to the development of the disease.
15

The late Judge Vicencio was a frontline o cer in the administration of justice,
being the most visible living representation of this country's legal and judicial system.
1 6 It is undisputed that throughout his noble career from Fiscal to Metropolitan Trial
Court Judge, and, nally, to RTC Judge, his work dealt with stressful daily work hours,
and constant and long-term contact with voluminous and dusty records. We also take
judicial notice that Judge Vicencio's workplace at the Manila City Hall had long been a
place with sub-standard o ces of judges and prosecutors over owing with records of
cases covered up in dust and are poorly ventilated. All these, taken together,
necessarily contributed to the development of his lung illness.
The case of Dator v. Employees' Compensation Commission 17 should be
instructive:
Until now the cause of cancer is not known. Despite this fact, however, the
Employees' Compensation Commission has listed some kinds of cancer as
compensable. There is no reason why cancer of the lungs should not be
considered as a compensable disease. The deceased worked as a librarian for
about 15 years. During all that period she was exposed to dusty books
and other deleterious substances in the library under unsanitary
conditions . (emphasis added)

On a nal note, it bears stressing that the late Judge Vicencio worked in the
government for a total of 37 years. 1 8 He is survived by his wife, respondent Mrs.
Vicencio, and a daughter. Their claim for death bene ts has been pending since 2001.
As the public agency charged by law in implementing P.D. No. 626, petitioner GSIS
should not lose sight of the fact that the constitutional guarantee of social justice
towards labor demands a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for
compensability.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
is affirmed. No costs. ACaDTH

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Corona, Leonardo-de Castro and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 15-55.
2. Id. at 56-68; dated September 27, 2006, penned by Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and
concurred in by Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Jose Catral Mendoza.

3. Id. at 72-74; dated November 6, 2002.

4. Attending Physician's Certification signed by Dr. Deogracias B. Custodio; id. at 77.

5. CA rollo, p. 52.
6. Letter addressed to Mrs. Vicencio dated November 27, 2001; id. at 41.
7. Letter addressed to Mrs. Vicencio dated May 20, 2002; id. at 54.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Supra note 3.
9. Supra note 2 at 67-68.
10. Rollo, pp. 69-70. ScaHDT

11. ECC Resolution No. 432 dated July 20, 1977 states in part:
The following are deemed compensable:

xxx xxx xxx

r) Cardiovascular Disease — Under any of the following conditions:

(i) If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must
be proof that an acute exacerbation [was] clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by
reason of the nature of [his] work.

(ii) The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity
and must be followed within twenty-four (24) hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac
insult to constitute causal relationship.
(iii) If a person who was apparently [asymptomatic] before [being subjected] to strain at
work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work
and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.
CHEIcS

12. Buena Obra v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 147745, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 206,
216.

13. Supra note 2 at 62.

14. Salalima v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 146360, May 20, 2004,
428 SCRA 715, 722-723, citing Salmone v. Employees' Compensation Commission and
Social Security System, G.R. No. 142392, 26 September 2000, 341 SCRA 150.
15. La O v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-50918, May 17, 1980, 97
SCRA 780, 790, citing Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission,
G.R. No. L-19773, May 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 305.

16. Government Service Insurance System v. Vallar, G.R. No. 156023, October 18, 2007, 536
SCRA 620, 625.

17. 197 Phil. 590, 593 (1982).

18. CA rollo, pp. 49-51. AaCEDS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com