G.R. No. 146360; May 20, 2004
Azucena O. Salalima, petitioner, vs. Employees Compensation Commission and Social Security System, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Azucena O. Salalima filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, following the death of her husband, Juancho S. Salalima. Juancho was employed for twenty-nine years as a route helper and later as a route salesman for Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Incorporated. In 1989, he was diagnosed with minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. In October 1994, a biopsy revealed he had “Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, metastatic.” He underwent chemotherapy and was later found to have pneumonia in February 1995. He was confined at Makati Medical Center and died on February 16, 1995, due to “Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs with widespread metastasis” and other complications. The Social Security System (SSS) denied the claim, concluding that lung cancer had no causal relationship with his job as a route salesman. The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the denial, relying on a medical report stating that exposure to smog and dust is not associated with lung cancer development. The Court of Appeals upheld the ECC’s decision. Petitioner argued that her husband’s work exposed him to pollutants and hazards, increasing the risk of his ailment, and noted his medical history included pulmonary tuberculosis and pneumonia.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner’s claim for death benefits under P.D. No. 626, as amended, is in accordance with the rules on employees’ compensation and existing jurisprudence.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and ORDERED the Social Security System to pay petitioner’s claim for death benefits.
Under P.D. No. 626, as amended, for a sickness and resulting death to be compensable, the claimant must prove either: (a) the sickness is a result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the Rules on Employees’ Compensation, or (b) the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant’s working conditions. While Adenocarcinoma of the lungs (lung cancer) is listed as an occupational disease, it is compensable only for vinyl chloride and plastic workers. However, compensation is not automatically barred if the claimant proves the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions.
The Court found that the respondent agencies failed to consider Juancho’s medical history, which included pulmonary tuberculosis and pneumonia. Medical authorities indicate that tuberculosis symptoms and lung lesions can be confused with or associated with an increased incidence of lung cancer. Given Juancho’s prolonged exposure to a detrimental work environment (smog and dust as a route salesman) and constant fatigue, the possibility that his lung cancer developed from the worsening of his pulmonary tuberculosis was not remote. The degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is substantial evidence, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The law requires only a reasonable work-connection, not a direct causal relation. The hypothesis based on Juancho’s work exposure and medical history was probable. Therefore, petitioner’s claim was compensable.