CAROLINA CLEMENTE, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM Department of Health (Dagupan City) and EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents
G.R. No. L-47521 | July
31, 1987
FACTS:
Petitioner’s late husband, Pedro Clemente,
was a janitor at Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Laoag City for 10 years. He was
hospitalized from Nov. 3-14, 1976 at the Central Luzon Sanitarium due to
nephritis. He was also found to be suffering from Hansen’s Disease.
On Nov. 14, 1976, Pedro Clemente died of
uremia due to nephritis. Thereafter, petitioner filed with the GSIS a claim for
employees’ compensation under the Labor Code.
The GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner
because the ailments of her husband are not occupational disease taking into
consideration the nature of his work and/or were not in the least causally
related to his duties and conditions of work.
Petitioner requested for reconsideration of
the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that the ailments of her husband were
contracted in the course of employment and were aggravated by the nature of his
work. Petitioner alleged that her husband, as janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin
Clinic (Laoag City), worked in direct contact with persons suffering from
different skin diseases and was exposed to obnoxious dusts and other dirt which
contributed to his ailment of Hansen's disease. Citing further the cases of
Seven-Up Bottling Co., of the Phil., v. Rimerata and Avana v. Quisumbing,
petitioner stated that her husband' sailment recurred in the course of
employment presumably due to his direct contact with persons suffering from
this ailment.
GSIS reiterated its previous denial of
Clemente’s claim. On April 14, 1977, the GSIS forwarded the records for review
by the ECC.
ECC affirmed the GSIS decision. Respondent
ECC's decision was anchored upon the findings that the ailments are not listed
as occupational diseases; that there was no substantial evidence of causal
connection; and that, in fact, the evidence was that the deceased had already
contracted the Hansen's disease before his employment.
Thus, the instant petition
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s claim is
compensable
RULING:
In Sarmiento v. Employees’ Compensation
Commission, the Court held that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in
claims for compensation. There are not stringent criteria to follow. The degree
of proof required is merely substantial evidence. The claimant must show, at
least, by substantial evidence that the development of the disease is brought
largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law
requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It
is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen'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. The
touchstone is probability not certainty.
The major ailments of the deceased, i.e.
nephritis, leprosy, etc., could be traced from bacterial and viral infections.
In the case of leprosy, it is known that the source of infection is the
discharge from lesions of persons with active cases. It is believed that the
bacillus enters the body through the skin or through the mucous membrane of the
nose and throat.
The husband of the petitioner worked in a
skin clinic. As janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Mr. Clemente was
exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases. He had to clean
the clinic itself where patients with different illnesses come and go. He had
to put in order the hospital equipments that had been used. He had to dispose
of garbage and wastes that accumulated in the course of each working day. He was
the employee most exposed to the dangerous concentration of infected materials,
and not being a medical practitioner, least likely to know how to avoid
infection. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's
working conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the
aforementioned ailments.
Comments
Post a Comment