GSIS V VILLAREAL (2007 Case) WE RULED THAT HIS DISEASE IS COMPENSABLE ON THE GROUND THAT ANY KIND OF WORK

OR LABOR We ruled that his disease is compensable on the ground that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body. In Government Service Insurance System v. Gabriel, we ruled that acute myocardial infarction is listed as an occupational disease, and its incidence, whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment, is enough basis for requiring compensation. And in Republic v. Mariano, we reiterated our ruling in Gabriel that heart disease and hypertension are compensable illnesses. [14] The fact that Zacarias was also diagnosed as having hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus was of no moment. As aforequoted in

Raises, the incidence of a listed occupational disease, whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment, is enough basis for requiring compensation[15] although modern medicine has in fact recognized that diabetes, heart complications, hypertension and even kidney disorder are all interrelated diseases. PD 626, as amended, is a social legislation the primordial purpose of which is to provide meaningful protection to the working class against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income The official agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee and his beneficiaries in deciding claims for compensation.
NICETAS C. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (1989) COMPENSABLE DISEASE

A compensable disease means any illness accepted and listed by the Employees' Compensation Commission or any illness caused by the employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same was increased by the working conditions. If the disease is listed in the Table of Occupational Diseases embodied in Annex A of the Rules on Employees' Compensation, no proof of causation is required. However, if it is not so listed, it has been held that the employee, this time assisted by his employer, is required to prove, a positive proposition, that is, that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. The fact that the cause of the disease was not positively identified does not dispense with this burden of proof. The observations heretofore made do not mean that proof of direct causal relation is indispensably required. It is enough that the claimant adduces proof of reasonable work connection, whereby the development of the disease was brought

about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. Strict rules of evidence are not demanded, the degree of proof required being merely substantial evidence, which has been held to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. GSIS V CORRALES
Unable to accept the findings of the ECC, respondent appealed to the CA on the argument that CHD is a form of cardiovascular disease which is considered as an occupational disease under item Cardiovascular diseases x x x in the List of Occupational and Compensable Diseases (Annex A) attached to the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, implementing P.D. No. 626 It is significant that Annex A employs the term cardiovascular diseases not only in its generic form but also in its plural sense. It is axiomatic in statutory construction that when a term is used in its plural sense, it is to be interpreted to encompass any and all related meanings of the term. Thus, cardiovascular diseases must mean all diseases of the cardiovascular system, without qualification as to nature, origin or type. The CA, therefore, did not err when it held that respondents CHD fell under the category of work-related diseases listed as . Cardiovascular diseases in Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.

TITLE II EMPLOYEES COMENSATION AND STATE INSURANCE FUND

Chapter I POLICY AND DEFINITIONS Article 166: POLICY COMMENTS AND CASES 1. OVERVIEW: WORKMENS COMPENSATIONS PROGRAM AND SIF Workmens Compensation is a general and comprehensive term applied to those laws providing for compensation for loss resulting from the INJURY, DISABLEMENT, or DEATH of workmen through INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT, CASUALTY or, DISEASE. Compensation means the money relief afforded according to the scale established under the statute, as differentiated from compensatory damages recoverable in an action at law for breach of contract or for tort Amount of Compensation generally determined in accordance with a definite schedule, based on the loss of earning power, the usual provision being for the payment of a specified amount at regular intervals over a definite period. Provision is also made, in most instance, for the furnishing of medical, surgical, hospital, nursing, and burial services in addition to independently of the payment of compensation. Primary Purpose is to provide compensation for disability or death resulting from occupational injuries or diseases, or accidental injury to, or death of, employees. It is for the benefit of the EMPLOYEES and not the employer

It is not Charity but a recognition of a moral duty and erection of it into a legal obligation of the PUBLIC not only of that of the employer. Based on the Idea that liability arising out of employers negligence is inapplicable to modern conditions of employment because of highly organized and hazardous industries of modern times. The causes of injuries are often so obscure and complex that it is usually impossible to ascertain the fact to from an accurate judgment. Further litigation causes expense and delays that defeats justice and antagonisms between employer and employee. Basically, the theory of negligence is discarded as the basis of liability, and in general a right to compensation is given for all injuries incident to the employment, the amount is limited to a given schedule. Purpose Improve the economic status of the worker Obviate uncertainties, delay, expense, and hardship attendant upon the enforcement of court remedies Transfer from the worker to the industry in which he is employed, and ultimately to the consuming public, a greater proportion of the economic loss due to industrial accidents and injuries. Improve the relations between employers and employees by avoiding or reducing the friction incident to litigation. Provide, not only for employees a remedy which is both expeditious and independent of proof of fault, but also for employers a liability which is limited and determinate.

Statutorily given Right which both create and measure the right Source of Compensation: 1. Direct Payment Statutes payment by the employer 2. Insurance Statutes a. require the employer to take out insurance either with i. an insurance bureau operated by the state ii. private company b. require and employer to contribute to a compensation fund State Insurance Fund the Labor Code adopts the compensation fund type. All covered employers are required to remit to a common fund a monthly contribution equivalent to one percent of the monthly salary credit of every covered employee. The employee pays NO contribution into the fund; agreement to the contrary is VOID and PROHIBITED. Compensation is in the form of medical supplies and services and/or cash income if employee is unable to earn because of injury of disease. Death benefits and funeral benefits are also given. Process: 1. Injury befalls the employee 2. Within 5 days must notify employer, if notification is required, who in turn ,must enter notice in the logbook 3. Within 5 days after entry report the sickness, injury or death deemed work connected to: a. SSS in private sector or; b. GSIS in public sector Note: The employer INITIALLY decided whether the injury, sickness or death is work related or not. 4. The claim is decided by the SSS or GSIS. Decisions of the two administering agencies are appealable to the Employees Compensation Commission, which is the policy making body, within 30 days. a. If the result of the appeal is favorable to the employee becomes final and executory, appealable to the SC in limited cases

b. If SSS or GSIS is reversed the two systems cannot appeal to the high court. 2. PD 626 AND ITS EFFECTIVE DATE PD 626 amended extensively the Labor Code provisions on ECC and SIF. It applies only prospectively. Because it took effect onJanuary 1, 1975 it applies to illness contracted on or after that date. For those contracted before said date the applicable law is the workmens compensation act its commission was finally abolished on March 31, 1976. 3. VALIDITY OF PD 626: NATURE OF THE STATE INSURANCE FUND Jose B. Sarmiento vs. Employees Compensation Commission, et. al. - PD 626 does not infringe upon the workers constitutional rights. The said new law discarded the concepts of presumption of compensability and aggravation to restore what the law believes as a sensible equilibrium between the employers obligation to pay and the employees right to receive reparation

The new law establishes a state insurance fund built up by the contributions of employers base don the salaries of their employees. The injured workers does not have to litigate his right to compensation. No employer opposes his claim. There is no notice of injury nor requirement of controversion. The sick worker simply files a claim with a new neutral ECC which then determines on the basis of employees supporting papers and medical evidence whether or not compensation may be paid. The payment of benefits is more prompt. The cost of administration is low.

The amount of death benefits has also been doubled. 3.1. Trust Fund
It is now the trust fund and not the employer that suffers if benefits are paid to the claimants who are not entitled under the law. The employer joins the employee in trying to have their claims approved. The employer is spared the problem of proving a negative proposition that the disease was not caused by employment. 3.2. Social Insurance Employees compensation is based on social security principles. All covered employers throughout the country are required to contribute fixed and regular premiums or contributions to a trust fund for their employees. Benefits are paid from this trust fund. At the time the amount of the contributions was being fixed, actuarial studies were undertaken. The actuarially determined number of workers who would probably file claims within any given year is important in insuring the stability of the trust fund and making certain that the system can pay its benefits due to all who are entitled and in the increased amounts fixed by law.

Thus, if diseases no intended by the law to be compensated are inadvertently or recklessly included the integrity of SIF is endangered. 4. WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT DISTINGUISHED FROM EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION LAW Workmens Compensation Act Employees Compensation Law Presumption of Compensability once it is proven that injury or disease arose in course of employment Abolished Rule that if ailment aggravated by work employer becomes liable Abolished Requires the employer to controvert the claim within 14 days from disability or 10 days from knowledge otherwise considered waived No need to controvert because the claim is against the SIF not the employer The old law destroyed the parity or balance between the competing interests of employer and employee with respect to workmens compensation. The balance was tilted unduly in favor of the workmen since it was possible to stretch the work-related nature of an ailment beyond the seemingly rational limits. Under the present law for an employee to be entitled to sickness, injury or death benefits, it must be result form or must have resulted: 1. Any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission 2. Any illness caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions