This is the case of Bernie, a government employee who died while still in the service. The issue here is whether the cause of his death is a compensable disease under the Workmen’s Compensation Law that entitles him to death benefits.
Bernie has been working with the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) assigned in Makati City as laborer, Metro Aide, and Metro Aide I. After working for almost 29 years, he was confined in the hospital for a few days and was diagnosed to have Myocardial Infarction, Community Acquired Pneumonia, Pulmonary Tuberculosis, and Diabetes Mellitus.
On January 15, 2005, Bernardo was found dead in the basement of the MMDA building. The autopsy conducted by the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory in Makati showed that he died of Myocardial Infarction, which is identical to a heart attack.
So his wife Marilou subsequently filed a claim for death benefits with the GSIS. But the GSIS denied the claim on the ground that myocardial infarction, which is the cause of Bernie’s death, is merely a complication of his diabetes mellitus, and diabetes mellitus is not considered a work-related illness because it is not included in the list of occupational diseases. Hence the GSIS ruled that the cause of Bernie’s death is not compensable. The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) agreed with the ruling of GSIS. Were the GSIS and the ECC correct?
No. According to the Supreme Court (SC), the GSIS and ECC totally disregarded the “stressful and strenuous conditions under which Bernie toiled†and set aside other influences that caused or contributed to his fatal heart condition. For almost three decades, Bernie had to bear difficult working conditions from day to day. While it is true that diabetes mellitus which led to Bernie’s heart condition is not listed as an occupational illness, other mental and physical factors of employment contributed to, if not directly caused the heart condition itself. They are aggravations which worsened and hastened Bernie’s fatal myocardial infarction and therefore must not be discounted.
The evidence on record shows that the nature of Bernie’s duties, and the conditions under which he worked for 29 years, cannot but lead to the deterioration of his health. It is common knowledge that an MMDA metro aide endures stress and strain of working both under the heat of the smoldering sun and the cold of the soaking rain. Add to it is the street pollution that is ever present in his work area. These circumstances — the length of Bernie’s service and the nature and condition of his work — clearly precipitated the myocardial infarction that finally led to Bernie’s death. A heart disease is compensable if it was known to have been present during employment and there is proof that its acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain due to the nature of the work (Resolution No. 432, No. 18, Amended Rules on Employees Compensation).
There must be a holistic appreciation of the circumstances and factors that may affect the working condition, and ultimately the health of a worker. Thus, “an agency charged by law with the implementation of social justice guaranteed and secured by the Constitution like the ECC, the GSIS and the SSS, should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employees in deciding claims for compensability, especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection to the accident or to the illness (Government Service Insurance System vs. Marilou Alcaraz, G.R. No. 187474, February 6, 2013).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law Vol. I and Criminal Law Vols. I and II, are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226 Ortigas Ave. S.J. 7249445. Our email address: attyjosesison@gmail.com