TodayisWednesday,September02,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L62207December15,1986

JUANBONIFACIO,petitionerappellant,
vs.
GOVERNMENTSERVICEINSURANCESYSTEM[MinistryofEducation&Culture]andEMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATIONCOMMISSION,respondentsappellees.

Cenon,Roncesvalles,Reyes&Leusforpetitionerappellant.

FERNAN,J.:

Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission dated August 19,
1982, affirming the denial by the Government Service Insurance System of petitioner's claim for benefits under
PDNo.626,asamended,forthedeathofhisspouse,LourdesBonifacio.

Thefactsareundisputed.

The late Lourdes Bonifacio was a classroom teacher assigned to the district of Bagamanoc, Division of
Catanduanes,MinistryofEducationandCulturefromAugust,1965untilshecontractedcarcinomaofthebreast
withmetastasestothegastrointestinaltractandlungswhichcausedherdeathonOctober5,1978.

Dra. Corazon YabesAlmirante of the Ospital ng Bagong Lipunan certified that the late Lourdes Bonifacio
underwent radical mastectomy for cancer of the breast in 1973. In 1976, when her ailment was noted to have
metastasizedtoherabdomen,shesubmittedherselftoanoperationknownas"exploratorylaparotomy"inMarch
ofthesameyear.OnSeptember1,1978,shecomplainedof"abdominalpain,abdominalenlargement,vomiting,
and failure to pass stools inspite of laxatives." Upon operation it was found that her entire gastrointestinal tract
wasenvelopedbycarcinoma.Despitechemotherapy,shediedonOctober5,1978fromcarcinomaofthebreast
metastatictogastrointestinaltractandlungs.

ThereafteraclaimfordeathbenefitsunderP.D.No.626,asamended,wasfiledbypetitionerwiththeGSIS.The
same was however denied on the ground that the decedent's principal ailment, carcinoma of the breast with
metastasestogastrointestinaltractandlungs,isnotanoccupationaldiseaseforherparticularworkasateacher,
noristheriskofcontractingsaiddiseaseincreasedbyherworkingconditions.

TheEmployeesCompensationCommission,onappealaffirmedthedecisionoftherespondentSystem.

PetitionernowassailsthedecisionoftherespondentCommissiononthefollowinggrounds:

a]TherespondentCommission'saffirmanceofthedenialbyrespondentSystemtotallyignoredthe
SupremeCourt'spronouncementsoncompensationcasesand

b] Under the law, in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the
LaborCode,includingitsimplementingrulesandregulations,thesameshallberesolvedinfavorof
thelaborer.

WeholdthattheGSISandtheEmployeesCompensationCommissiondidnoterrindenyingpetitioner'sclaim.

A compensable sickness means "any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the
Employees Compensation Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof by the employee
that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. For this purpose, the Commission is
empoweredtodetermineandapproveoccupationaldiseasesandworkrelatedillnessesthatmaybeconsidered
compensablebasedonpeculiarhazardsofemployment."[Art.167(1)LaborCodeasamendedbyP.D.No.1368,
 effectiveMay1,1978].

Thus,forthesicknessortheresultingdisabilityordeathtobecompensable,thesicknessmustbetheresultofan
acceptedoccupationaldiseasefistedbytheEmployeesCompensationCommission[Annex"A"oftheAmended
RulesonEmployeesCompensation],oranyothersicknesscausedbyemploymentsubjecttoproofbyclaimant
that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. [Sec. 1, Rule 11, Amended Rules on
EmployeesCompensation].

CarcinomaofthebreastwithmetastasestothegastrointestinaltractandlungsisnotlistedbytheCommissionas
anoccupationaldisease.Astothe"metastasestothegastrointestinaltractandlungs"theCommissionlistssuch
diseaseasoccupationalonlyinthefollowingemployment:

OccupationalDiseases NatureofEmployment

16. Cancer of stomach and other lymphatic Woodworkers, wood products industry
and blood forming vessels nasal cavity and carpenters, loggers and employees in pulp
sinuses andpapermillsandplywoodmills

17.Cancerofthelungs,liverandbrain. Vinylchlorydeworkers,plasticworkers.

[AnnexA,AmendedRulesonEmployeesCompensation,seep.38,Rollo.]

The cancer which affected the deceased not being occupational in her particular employment, it became incumbent upon
petitioner to prove that the decedent's working conditions increased the risk of her contracting the fatal illness. This onus
petitioner failed to satisfactorily discharge. We note the following medical report on breast cancer which the Employees
CompensationCommissioncitedinitsdecisionandwhichthepetitionerfailedtocontrovert:

... Recent observations on the epidemeology of breast cancer suggest that it is intimately linked to "estrogenic
hormones" [W.A.P Anderson, Mosby, Pathology 5th edition, pp. 12171218]. Mammary carcinoma is likely to
metastasizerelativelyearlytotheregionallymphnodesaxillaryandsupraclavicular,iftheprimarysiteisintheouter
halfofthebreast.Fromthenceitspreadsprimarilytothebones,lungs,skinandsubcutaneoustissuesgenerallyless
frequentlytothebrain.[Wintrobeet.al.,Harrison'sPrinciplesofInternalMedicine, 7th edition, pp. 584585]. (pp. 34,
ECCdecisiondatedAugust19,1982).

Petitioner's contention that the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission totally ignored the Supreme Court's
pronouncementsoncompensationcasesisunmeritorious.Thepetitionerevidentlyoverlookedthathisclaimisnowwithinthe
ambitoftheLaborCodeandtherulingsundertheoldlaw,ActNo.3428,asamended,nolongercontrol.

TheoldlawasembodiedparticularlyinSection43ofRANo.772amendingActNo.3812,providedfor"thepresumptionof
compensabilityandtheruleonaggravationofillness,whichfavortheemployee,"and"pavedthewayforthelatitudinarianor
expansiveapplicationoftheWorkmen'sCompensationLawinfavoroftheemployeeorworker."[Sulitv.ECC,98SCRA483,
489]Thepresumptioninessencestatesthatinanyproceedingfortheenforcementoftheclaimforcompensationunderthe
Workmen's Compensation Act "it shall be presumed in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary that the claim
comeswithintheprovisionsofthesaidAct,thatsufficientnoticethereofwasgiven,thattheinjurywasnotoccasionedbythe
willfulintentionoftheinjuredemployeetobringabouttheinjuryordeathofhimselforofanother,thattheinjurydidnotresult
solely from the intoxicatiojn of the injured employee while on duty, and that the contents of verified medical and surgical
reportsintroducedinevidencebyclaimantsforcompensationarecorrect."

Thus,undertheWorkmen'sCompensationLaw,itisnotnecessaryfortheclaimanttocarrytheburdenofprooftoestablish
hiscasetothepointofdemonstration[Abanavs.Quisumbing,22SCRA1278].Itis"notnecessarytoprovethatemployment
was the sole cause of the death or injury suffered by the employee. It is sufficient to show that the employment had
contributedtotheaggravationoraccelerationofsuchdeathorailment."[Fontesavs.ECC,22SCRA282]"Oncethedisease
hadbeenshowntohaveariseninthecourseofemployment,itispresumedbylaw,intheabsenceofsubstantialevidenceto
thecontrary,thatitaroseoutofit."[Hernandezvs.ECC,et.al.L20202,May31,1965].

Withthislegalpresumptionintheoldlaw,theburdenofproofshiftstotheemployerandtheemployeenolongersuffersthe
burden of showing causation. Under the present Labor Code, the "latitudinarian or expansive application of the Workmen's
Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker" no longer prevails as the burden of showing proof of causation has
shiftedbacktotheemployeeparticularlyincasesofsicknessorinjurieswhicharenotacceptedorlistedasoccupationalby
the Employees Compensation Commission. As stated in Sulit vs. Employees Compensation Commission [supra] "the Labor
Code abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of the
employment."

Whilewedonotdisputepetitioner'scontentionthatunderthelaw,incaseofdoubtintheimplementationandinterpretationof
theprovisionsoftheLaborCode,includingitsimplementingrulesandregulations,thedoubtshallberesolvedinfavorofthe
laborer,wefindthatthesamehasnoapplicationinthiscasesincethepertinentprovisionsoftheLaborCodeleavenoroom
fordoubteitherintheirinterpretationorapplication.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisdismissedandthedecisionsoftheGSISandtheEmployeesCompensationCommissiondenying
theclaimareaffirmed.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Feria(Chairman),Alampay,Gutierrez,Jr.,andParas,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation