[ G.R. No. L-45662. August 20, 1985 ] 222 Phil. 491
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-45662. August 20, 1985 ]
FELIPE U. ERESE, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GSIS METRO MANILA, APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
This is a petition for review filed in forma pauperis seeking the reversal of the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which denied the petitioner’s claim for disability compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626. Felipe U. Erese filed a claim for disability compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626 with the GSIS in 1976. In a letter dated December 2, 1976, the GSIS through Domingo N. Garcia, the Assistant General Manager of the Medicare and Employment Compensation Department denied his application for benefits on the ground that his ailments, Inguinal Hernia, Error of Refraction, Central Retinopathy and Chronic Otitis Media, are not occupational diseases nor has he substantially proven that said ailments directly resulted from his occupation as Supervising Prison Guard. In his petition for review, Erese alleges that:
(a) He was appointed Prison Guard-Foreman on December 4, 1951 and was a member of the second batch assigned for duty to the Nafco Abaca Project, later known as the Kapalong Sub-Colony, Davao City; (b) As such prison guard, he had the additional duty, as foreman or officer-in-charge, of escorting about 50 to 120 working prisoners from and to their place of work which is about 5 to 15 kilometers from their place of confinement; (c) Considering the distance they had to walk, they were exposed to the elements of sun and rain especially during the clearing of the vast forest in the said colony in preparation for the planting of rice, corn and abaca and by reason of insufficient rest and sleep, Erese contracted and suffered inguinal hernia, defect on the right and left ears, weakening of the eyes, high blood pressure, rheumatism, arthritis which caused him to go on sick leaves most of the time; (d) On October 1, 1956, as per Directive No. 255, SS. 1956, Erese was transferred for duty and for medical treatment to the National Bureau of Prisons (NBP), Muntinlupa, Rizal. He was also assigned to escort prisoners within Manila and the nearby provinces; (e) Sometime in 1958, as a result of the numerous prison riots staged by malefactors and hardened inmates, all guard keepers including Erese were ordered to render red alert duties. And because of these, they experienced exhaustion and irregular mealtimes and suffered gastro-enteritis, peptic ulcers, high blood pressure, hernia, weakening of the eyes and general weakening of the body; (f) On October 4, 1973, per Mission Order No. 340, Erese was assigned and designated incharge of escorting two hundred (200) prisoners from the NBP, Muntinlupa, Rizal to Sablayan Penal Colony; (g) On October 21, 1973, per Administrative Order No. 376, Erese was again incharge of escorting one hundred (100) prisoners for colony assignment to Sablayan Penal Colony. There being no pier, they had to wade to the Kalachuchi Beach for about 50 meters clinging only to a rope. And because of the strong and big waves, Erese was thrown upside down, filling his ears and eyes with sea water. As a result, blood came out of his ear; (h) On October 6, 1973, on another escort trip to Sablayan, they were met by a strong typhoon. They experienced rain, strong winds, insufficient food, lack of sleep and rest, slept overnight with wet clothes as a result of crossing streams, rivers and mud. Erese alleged to have become sickly and pale; thus, aggravating his hernia, eyes and ears, rheumatism, high blood pressure and arthritis; (i) Upon arrival at Muntinlupa, Rizal, he was operated on for his hernia and was treated for his eyes and ears by prison doctors and doctors from the Tamesis Clinic and Philippine Veterans Hospital; and (j) He was placed under the partial and total disability list and applied for disability compensation under PD No. 626.
Despite the allegations made in the petition and after a careful perusal of the records of the case, we are constrained to agree with the Employees Compensation Commission in denying the claim of petitioner Erese. We conclude that under PD No. 626, Erese’s ailments could not be classified as occupational diseases. And the ailments not being included in the listing of occupational diseases, Erese regrettably failed to substantially prove that they arose out of his employment as prison guard —
“Inguinal Hernia is the protrusion of a loop of an organ or tissue thru an abnormal opening into the inguinal canal. It is caused by a congenital weakness of the abdominal fascia and muscles covering the inguinal openings. Error of Refraction is the inability of the eye to focus the image of objects exactly upon the retina resulting to blurred vision. It may be either congenital, hereditary or a physiologic change. Macular Retinopathy is characterized by retinal changes with small hemorrhages in the macular area. This may be hereditary or due to senile and arteriosclerotic diseases. Otitis Media, on the other hand, is chronic infection of the middle ear.”
According to the Employees Compensation Commission Rules and Regulations, for an illness to be compensable, it must be established —
“(1) That the illness is definitely accepted as an occupational disease; or “(2) That the illness is caused by the employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions."
Erese’s ailments could not necessarily and directly have been the result of the risks and hazards of his occupation as prison guard. Hence the ailments may not be considered occupational. And in the absence of proof, we could not conceive or arrive at a logical explanation or probability that they arose out of his employment. Erese asserts that the demands of his employment caused him physical strain and exhaustion, to lose sleep and rest. He states that insufficient food and exposure to the elements of sun and rain made his body generally weakened thus rendering him vulnerable to diseases. Erese’s argument that such illnesses are compensable is premised on the doctrine of presumption of compensability. Under the former law, when an illness supervened during the course of employment, there was a presumption that the same arose out of or at least was aggravated in the course of employment (Mesina v. Republic, 90 SCRA 488). However, as laid down in the case of Armeña v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (122 SCRA 851), the doctrine was deliberately repealed and, therefore, abandoned under the Employees’ Compensation Act. This was clearly explained by Justice Ramon C. Aquino in the case of Sulit v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (98 SCRA 483) where it was stated:
“Those radical innovations, the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness, which favor the employee, paved the way for the latitudinarian or expansive application of the Workmen’s Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker. ‘It now appears that after the government had experimented for more than twenty years with such employee-oriented application of the law, the lawmaker found the result to be unsatisfactory because it destroyed the parity or balance between the competing interests of employer and employee with respect to workmen’s compensation. The balance was tilted unduly in favor of the workmen. “Hence, to restore a sensible equilibrium between the employer’s obligation to pay workmen’s compensation and the employee’s right to receive reparation for work-connected death or disability, the old law was jettisoned and in its place we have the employees’ compensation and date insurance fund in the Labor Code, as amended. As correctly observed by the learned Government Corporate Counsel, Manuel M. Lazaro, the Labor Code abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of the employment. This Court is powerless to apply those rules under the Labor Code (Resolution of
March 8, 1978 in L-47008, Ibañez v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission).” We have tried hard to find some factual basis for applying the Workmen’s Compensation Act in this case to enable us to decide in favor of the petitioner but our efforts have proved in vain. In the case of Corales v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (88 SCRA 547), this Court ruled:
“Article 294, Title III (Transitory and Final Provisions) of the New Labor Code provides that all actions and claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this code shall be determined in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their accrual and under the third paragraph of Article 292, Title II (Prescription of Offenses and Claims), workmen’s compensation claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code and during the period from November 1, 1974 up to December 31, 1974 shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the laws and rules at the time their causes of action accrued.”
After a painstaking review of the records of the case, nowhere does it appear that Erese contracted his diseases or ailments before January 1, 1975. There are no medical findings, reports, affidavits, evidence, or any indication that Erese was suffering from any pain or discomfort prior to the effectivity of the Labor Code which by liberal interpretation may have worked in his favor. The records disclose that Erese was treated for the first time for his hernia and the defect in the eyes and ears only on January 10, 1976. His medical history, according to the examining doctor was “not remarkable” indicating or meaning that no unusual sickness, pain, or treatment had been experienced or undertaken in the past which would have continued to his present ailments. The sick leaves which petitioner alleged he obtained unfortunately fail to substantiate or justify the claim that they were caused by his present ailments for which he is seeking compensation. As aptly stated in the Armeña case:
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x It would be delving in the realm of pure conjecture to rule that the last mentioned disease accrued, or was aggravated by ailments that supervened prior to January 1, 1975.”
With regards to the defect of the petitioner’s eyes and ears, it cannot be concluded that the same arose out of his employment. The hazards of his employment were not that peculiar as would have naturally caused the defect. There is no dispute that the ailments fall under the Employees’ Compensation Act which requires substantial proof that such ailments arose out of his employment. Unfortunately, Erese failed to present any convincing proofs. What is clear is that these defects are ailments to which mankind in general is exposed or afflicted, irregardless of the nature of his work. As for hernia, the case of Bonilla v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission (13 SCRA 748) lays down the conditions for this ailment to be compensable. These have also been adopted by the Employees Compensation Commission in ECC Resolution No. 432, dated July 20, 1977, to wit:
That the hernia is of recent origin. That its appearance was accompanied by pain, discoloration, and evidence of a tearing of the tissues. That it was immediately preceded by some strain out of and in the course of employment. That a protrusion or mass appeared in the area immediately following the alleged strain. (Occupational Diseases by Johnstone, W. B. Saunders Co., 1942, pp. 421-424).”
The Court in the aforecited Bonilla case held that:
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x the hernia and the nature of the work of Perfecto Bonilla have no causal relationship; and that the eventual hernia operation was done not because it was aggravated as a result of the alleged strain in the course of his employment but because of the progressive enlargement during the long span of 10 years of the preformed sac filled with intestine or omentum which kept on exerting gradual pressure upon the weakening abdominal rings, fascia and muscles.”
In the case of Erese, it may similarly be opined that his hernia is long-standing and not of recent origin. As this Court previously ruled in Bonilla:
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x Significantly, during that interregnum, claimant did not make any complaint nor did he ever bring to the attention of the employer’s physician that he was suffering from that sickness. This long silence has given rise to the impression that the recurrence of the sickness was not really due to the nature of the work of the claimant but simply to ordinary causes that come forth because of daily wear and tear of the human body as a concomitant result of his work in the shop of the company.”
This Court has always endeavored to uphold the interests of labor vis-a-vis the concerns of management. However, much as we sympathize with the plight of claimant-appellant Erese, we are constrained to deny his claim for want of substantial proof to show that his ailments were contracted during his employment. WHEREFORE, we hold that the decision appealed from should be, as it is, hereby, AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De La Fuente, Cuevas, Alampay, and Patajo, JJ., concur. Makasiar, C.J., see dissent. Teehankee and Abad Santos, JJ., no part.