G.R. No. 192352 , July 23, 2014
ROSEMARIE ESMARIALINO, Petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and JIMENEZ PROTECTIVE and SECURITY AGENCY, Respondents.

FACTS

Edwin C. Esmarialino, husband of petitioner Rosemarie Esmarialino, worked as a Security Guard for Jimenez Protective and Security Agency since May 1993. In May 2004, he was diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. He died on March 20, 2005, with the death certificate stating the immediate cause as Cardiopulmonary Arrest, antecedent cause as Sepsis secondary to Pneumonia, and an underlying cause of Pneumonia, with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia noted as a other significant condition contributing to his death. Edwin had been granted SSS Temporary Total Disability benefits, Permanent Partial Disability benefits, and Death with Funeral Benefits. However, the SSS denied the claim for Employees’ Compensation (EC) death benefits, citing no causal relationship between Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and his job as a security guard. The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the denial, finding no clear proof of a causal relationship or showing of an occupational exposure that increased the risk of developing leukemia. The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise denied the claim, noting that leukemia is considered an occupational disease only for specific exposures (e.g., X-rays, ionizing particles, radium, radioactive substances, radiant energy, or exposure to anesthetics for operating room personnel) and that the petitioner failed to adduce proof that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working conditions, beyond an allegation of sleep deprivation due to his work schedule.

ISSUE

Whether the illness (Acute Myelogenous Leukemia) which caused the death of Edwin C. Esmarialino is work-related and compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended (the Employees’ Compensation Law).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issues raised were factual in nature and generally beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition. It found no compelling reason to reverse the uniform findings of the SSS, ECC, and CA, which were amply supported. The Court reiterated that for a sickness not listed as an occupational disease, the claimant must prove with substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by the working conditions. Citing Benito E. Lorenzo v. GSIS and DepEd, the Court ruled that the coverage of leukemia as an occupational disease relates to specific employments involving exposure to certain substances or anesthetics, and there was no showing that the deceased’s work involved such exposure. The petitioner’s allegation of sleep deprivation weakening his immune system, without supporting medical evidence to establish a causal connection, remained a bare allegation insufficient to justify compensation. The Court emphasized that the principles of “presumption of compensability” and “aggravation” under the old law are discarded under the present system, which requires proof of increased risk.