G.R. No. L-42731 February 28, 1985
BETTER BUILDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs. SEVERO M. PUCAN, DIOSCORA C. ARELLANO and ROGELIO FERNANDO, respondents.

FACTS

Rogelio Fernando was employed by Better Buildings, Inc. in 1971, initially as a janitor and later as a maintenance supervisor. His duties as a janitor at two funeral parlors involved sweeping, scrubbing, cleaning areas where cadavers lay, assisting in dressing the dead, and disposing of trash and garbage from embalming. On April 18, 1974, he stopped working due to “Hansen’s Disease Lepromatous positive with claw hands on both,” resulting in permanent disability. He filed a claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The employer, Better Buildings, Inc., controverted the claim. It presented a medical certification stating Fernando had been suffering from advanced lepromatous leprosy since 1963, arguing the disease was not occupational nor compensable and did not arise from or was aggravated by his employment. Fernando countered that although diagnosed in 1963, he was treated and declared negative of the disease and released from the Central Luzon Sanitarium in 1969. He asserted the illness reappeared and became aggravated in its severe, disabling form during his employment due to his exposure to germs and bacteria while performing his janitorial duties in funeral parlors.

ISSUE

Whether Rogelio Fernando’s Hansen’s Disease (leprosy) is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, having been allegedly aggravated by the nature of his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the award of compensation benefits, with modification. The legal logic centers on the application of the presumptions and evidentiary standards under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Court found that Fernando’s illness, which was either non-existent or dormant prior to his 1971 employment, reappeared and was aggravated during his service. His duties as a janitor in funeral parlors exposed him to germs, bacteria, and other stresses, which weakened his resistance and contributed to the disease’s progression.
Crucially, under the Act, when an ailment is contracted or aggravated in the course of employment, a presumption of compensability arises, and the burden shifts to the employer to refute this by substantial evidence. The employer failed to meet this burden. Its own evidence, a physician’s report, indicated the disease was “most probably” aggravated by the employment, which establishes the required probability of causation. The Court reiterated that in compensation proceedings, probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof. Furthermore, the Court cited precedent establishing that Hansen’s Disease, like tuberculosis, is a systemic disease whose development can be influenced by factors such as exposure and lessening of bodily resistance due to employment conditions. Therefore, the illness, having been aggravated in the course of employment and causing permanent disability, is compensable.