GR 42451; (July, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42451 July 30, 1976
Calixta Mercado, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Riverside Mills Corporation, respondents.
FACTS
Regalado Mercado began working as a weaver for Riverside Mills Corporation in 1963. In October 1973, he experienced stomach pains and was diagnosed by Dr. Concepcion Carambas with “cirrhosis of the liver; hyperdality, secondary to liver cirrhosis,” attributed to malnutrition. Despite his illness, he continued working until his condition deteriorated, leading to his death on October 31, 1974. His widow, Calixta Mercado, filed a claim for death compensation benefits. The Acting Referee awarded compensation, finding the illness work-connected.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) reversed the award, dismissing the claim. The Commission concluded the illness was not work-connected, speculating it could be due to alcohol consumption rather than employment conditions. It also noted the absence of a G.I. Series examination, although it did not dispute the physician’s diagnosis. The widow elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the illness (cirrhosis of the liver) that caused Regalado Mercado’s death is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
Yes, the illness is compensable. The Supreme Court reversed the WCC decision and reinstated the award. The legal logic rests on the statutory presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Once an illness supervenes during employment, as it did here after ten years of service, the law presumes it arose out of or was aggravated by such employment. This presumption is rebuttable, shifting the burden of proof to the employer to show the illness is not work-related.
The Court found the employer, Riverside Mills, failed to rebut this presumption. The attending physician’s report explicitly stated the cirrhosis was “aggravated by his employment due to heavy and too much physical exertion and irregular meals.” The WCC’s alternative theory that the illness might be due to alcohol consumption was unsupported by any evidence in the record. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that compensability does not require employment to be the sole cause; it is sufficient if employment contributed, even in a small degree, to the development or acceleration of the disease. The absence of a G.I. Series examination does not negate the established diagnosis and the legal presumption. Therefore, the claim is meritorious.