GR 40691; (November, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40691 November 29, 1977
RODOLFO MONSALE, for himself and his minor children ERROL and ARDEN, both surnamed MONSALE, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Health) and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Zenaida M. Monsale was a permanent Midwife II for the Department of Health, stationed in Barrio Nalumban, Guimbal, Iloilo. Her duties involved extensive fieldwork, including house-to-house immunization campaigns, delivering babies at night, and attending to patients daily, often causing delays in meals and requiring travel on foot. She served until her last day on July 1, 1970. On July 9, 1970, she was hospitalized and diagnosed with “Portal Cirrhosis.” Discharged on July 12, she died shortly thereafter from “C.A. of the liver.” Her surviving husband and minor children filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The Hearing Officer of Regional Office No. 7 awarded compensation, finding the illness work-related. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this decision. The Commission relied solely on an internal Evaluation Division report which concluded that Portal Cirrhosis, primarily linked to malnutrition, was not inherent to her work as a midwife and that her duties could not have caused or aggravated the illness. The Commission disregarded the testimony of Dr. Innocencio Aparicio presented during the hearing, who stated that infection—a possible cause of cirrhosis—could have been contracted from food or water in the barrios she served.
ISSUE
Whether the illness (Portal Cirrhosis) that caused Zenaida Monsale’s death arose out of or was aggravated by the nature of her employment as a midwife, thereby entitling her heirs to death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the Hearing Officer’s award, with an increase in attorney’s fees. 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, it is presumed to be work-related, and the burden shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption with substantial evidence. Here, the employer failed to meet this burden.
The Commission erred by basing its decision entirely on an ex parte evaluation report from its own division, which was not presented as evidence during the trial. This report, being hearsay and not subject to cross-examination, cannot prevail over the substantial evidence adduced at the hearing. The testimony of Dr. Aparicio provided a credible medical link, stating that infection—a potential cause of cirrhosis—was possible given her fieldwork conditions. The nature of her duties, involving constant travel, irregular meals, and exposure in rural areas, supported the claim that her employment could have precipitated or aggravated her condition. Therefore, the presumption of compensability stood unrebutted, mandating the grant of death benefits to her heirs.