GLORIA
D. MENEZ, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & CULTURE), respondents
G.R. No. L-48488 | April 25, 1980
FACTS:
Petitioner Gloria D. Menez was a school
Teacher at Raja Solima High School in Tondo-Binondo, Manila. She retired on
August 31, 1975 due to rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis.
On Oct. 21, 1976, petitioner filed a claim
for disability benefits with respondent GSIS. GSIS denied said claim on the
ground that petitioner’s ailments are not occupational diseases taking into
consideration the nature of her particular work.
Petitioner filed for reconsideration of the
denial of her claim, which was denied again by GSIS, reiterating that on the
basis of the evidence on record, it appears that petitioner has not established
that her employment had any causal relationship with the contraction of the
ailments.
On March 11, 1977, the case was elevated to
the Employees’ Compensation Commission for review. On March 1, 1976, respondent
Commission issued a decision en banc stating that appellant’s employment has
nothing to do with the development of her disabling illnesses. Appellant’s
ailments are not listed as occupation diseases for the employment she was
engaged in as to merit compensation under PD 626.
On July 7, 1978, petitioner filed for the
review of the aforesaid decision of respondent Commission.
Petitioner claims she contracted
pneumonitis and/or bronchiectasis with hemoptysis and rheumatoid arthritis on
January 27, 1975 after wetting and chilling during the course of employment
which are permanent and recurring in nature and work-connected.
Petitioner maintains that her ailments
arose in the course of employment and were aggravated by the condition and
nature of her work. Specifically, she asserts that “pneumonitis or baby
pneumonia which has become chronic that led to bronchiectasis which is
irreversible and permanent in nature is compensable under No. 21 of compensable
diseases as conditions were present as attested to by doctor’s affidavits and
certifications.”
Respondents Commission and System contend
that petitioner’s ailments of rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis are not
among the occupational diseases listed as compensable under PD 626 or under
Annex “A” of the Rules on Employees’ Compensation; and, that respondent
Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the form of
accepted medical findings thus making said decision final and conclusive on the
matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s ailment is
work-related and thus compensable
RULING:
For an illness to be compensable, it must
either be:
1.
An illness definitely accepted
as an occupational disease; or
2.
An illness caused by employment
subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is
increased by working conditions.
An occupational disease is one “which
results from the nature of the employment, and by nature is meant conditions to
which all employees of a class are subject and which produce the disease as a
natural incident of a particular occupation, and attach to that occupation a
hazard which distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations and is in
excess of the hazard attending the employment in general”
To be occupational, the disease must be one
“due wholly to causes and conditions which are normal and constantly present
and characteristic of the particular occupation; that is, those things which
science and industry have not yet learned how to eliminate. Every worker in
every plant of the same industry is alike constantly exposed to the danger of
contracting a particular occupational disease.”
From the foregoing definitions of
occupational diseases or ailments, rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis can be
considered as such occupational diseases. All public high school teachers, like
herein petitioner, admittedly the most underpaid but overworked employees of
the government, are subject to emotional strains and stresses, dealing as they
do with intractable teenagers, especially young boys, and harassed as they are
by various extra-curricular or non-academic assignments, aside from preparing
lesson plans until late at night, if they are not badgered by very demanding
superiors. In the case of the petitioner, her emotional tension is heightened
by the fact that the high school in which she teaches is situated in a tough
area— Binondo district, which is inhabited by thugs and other criminal elements
and further aggravated by the heavy pollution and congestion therein as well as
the stinking smell of the dirty Estero de la Reina nearby. Women, like herein
petitioner, are most vulnerable to such unhealthy conditions. The pitiful
situation of all public school teachers is further accentuated by poor diet,
for they can ill-afford nutritious food.
In her work, petitioner also has to contend
with the natural elements, like the inclement weather—heavy rains, typhoons—as
well as dust—and disease-ridden surroundings peculiar to an insanitary slum
area.
These unwholesome conditions are “normal
and consistently present in” or are the “hazards peculiar to” the occupation of
a public high school teacher. It is therefore evident that rheumatoid arthritis
and pneumonitis are the “natural incidents” of petitioners occupation as such
public high school teacher.
But even if rheumatoid arthritis and
pneumonitis are not occupational diseases, there is ample proof that petitioner
contracted such ailments by reason of her occupation as a public high school
teacher due to her exposure to the adverse working conditions above- mentioned.
The Court finds petitioner to have substantially
show that the risk of contracting her ailments had been increased by
unfavorable working conditions.
In Dimaano vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, the Court ruled that illnesses of rheumatic arthritis with
sub-acute exacerbation and hypertension of therein petitioner, who was herself
a teacher, as service-connected, considering her working conditions and nature
of employment which are substantially the same as those of herein petitioner.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that “the
approval of petitioner’s application for retirement is a clear indication that
she was physically incapacitated to render efficient service. Petitioner was
allowed to retire at the age of 54 which is way below the compulsory retirement
age of 65. Under Memorandum Circular No. 133, the retirement shall be
recommended for approval only when “the employee applicant is below 65 years of
age and is physically incapacitated to render further efficient service.”
Obviously, petitioner thus retired by reason of her ailments.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Section 1 (b), Rule III of the Amended
Rules on Employees Compensation explicitly provides that for the sickness and
the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the
result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of these rules with
the conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the
risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions”
Petitioner retired due to rheumatoid
arthritis and pneumonitis. Those ailments are not listed as occupational
diseases. Nor is there adequate proof that the risk of contracting them was
increased by conditions under which petitioner worked. In fact, in so far as
rheumatoid arthritis is concerned, it has been described as a “chronic systemic
inflammatory disease of unknown cause.” It is also a disease that is worlds
apart from acute arthritis, mentioned in the Decision.
Comments
Post a Comment