Occupational disease

This is another case of claim for workman’s compensation. Once more the Court has occasion to reiterate the liberality of the law in favor of the working man. This is the case of Celso.

Celso started working at the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in 1977 as Clerk II. By 1993 he was already the Senior Terminal Operations Officer after working his way up the ladder. Celso’s work entailed that he be stationed in the Port of Manila and the South Harbor demanding long hours of analysis, appraisals, review, audit and research to maintain the efficient and systematic release of outgoing vessels and the reception of incoming vessels. The sanitation and environmental condition of his place of work admittedly left much to be desired especially because his duties required him to mingle with numerous persons.

Coupled with the fact that Celso was a chain smoker since age 20, it was no surprise that by 1984, he was diagnosed to be suffering from coronary artery disease. And sometime in 1986, it was discovered that he had Diabetes Mellitus which rendered him insulin resistant resulting in increased arterial pressure sufficient to cause myocardial infarction and eventually, hypertension. True enough by 1988, he experienced shortness of breath and was diagnosed to have hypertension. By 1999 he was already confined in the hospital for Pulmonary Tuberculosis II. Thereafter he went in and out of the hospital and was frequently on sick leave. By 2002, he was diagnosed to be suffering from pneumonia, hypertension, pulmonary tuberculosis, cerebro-vascular disease (CVD) and diabetes mellitus.

Thus Celso filed with the GSIS a claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (PD 626). But the GSIS denied his claim on the ground that his ailments are not considered occupational disease; neither was there any showing that his duties have increased the risk of contracting said ailments. Celso’s appeal to the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) was also dismissed on the ground that his hypertension pneumonia, and pulmonary tuberculosis are mere complications of his primary ailment of diabetes mellitus, which is not an occupational disease, hence not compensable. On the other hand, CVD may indeed be an occupational disease but Celso failed to show compliance with all the conditions for its compensability, according to ECC.

On further review, the Court of Appeals however ruled that hypertension, pneumonia and pulmonary tuberculosis are not caused by diabetes mellitus alone but also by other environmental and occupational factors. Was the CA correct?

The CA is partly correct. As regards pneumonia and pulmonary tuberculosis, their possible cause may be environmental or occupational depending on the level of sanitation of the surroundings and the health conditions of the persons he mingles with. While diabetic persons are prone to various infections, it is equally true that one’s susceptibility to these maladies is increased by the occupational and environmental exposure to the disease producing organisms or pathogens, not to mention fatigue and mental and emotional strain that affects the physical condition of a person. Celso works in the Port of Manila where the occupational and overall environmental conditions are questionable. Moreover his duties require that he mingle with numerous persons who may have been carriers of disease causing virus. His job demanded long working hours. So his ailment of pneumonia and pulmonary tuberculosis are compensable. In fact they are listed in the law as occupational diseases. The degree of proof required by P.D. 626 is merely such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 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. Any doubt on this matter has to be interpreted in favor of the employee considering that P.D. 626 is a social legislation.

With respect to Celso’s hypertension however, it is not compensable. It is a complication of his primary ailment of diabetes mellitus, a non-occupational disease. Diabetes mellitus is acquired through the mechanism of inheritance. It is an endocrine and familial disease characterized by metabolic abnormalities remotely caused by environmental and occupational conditions. Diabetic patients suffer abnormalities in blood circulation. The disease is characterized as pro-coagulant that can cause clogging of one or several coronary arteries in the heart that cuts off the distribution of oxygen. This would result to myocardial infarction and eventually, hypertension.

So GSIS should pay Celso’s claim for compensation arising only from his pneumonia and tuberculosis (GSIS vs. Valenciano, G.R. 168821, April 10, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]