GR 51543; (June, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 51543 June 6, 1989
EMILIA VDA. DE INGUILLO, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Ministry of Education and Culture), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emilia Vda. de Inguillo sought death benefits following the demise of her husband, Enrique V. Inguillo, a public school janitor with 31 years of service. He was hospitalized from February 24 to June 5, 1978, for difficulty in swallowing, chest pains, difficulty breathing, fever, and productive cough. He died on June 20, 1978, at age 52. The death certificate listed the causes as “Terminal malignancy, Poorly differentiated Esophageal Adenocarcinoma with Bone and Cervical Metastasis, Pneumonia.” The GSIS denied the claim, ruling that esophageal cancer is not an occupational disease. The ECC affirmed the denial, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the death of Enrique V. Inguillo is compensable under the Employees’ Compensation Program of the Labor Code.
RULING
Yes, the death is compensable. The Court first clarified the applicable law. Since the illness and death occurred after January 1, 1975, the governing law is the Labor Code’s Employees’ Compensation Program, not the old Workmen’s Compensation Act. The presumptions of compensability and aggravation under the old law no longer apply. Under the new scheme, for a sickness to be compensable, it must either be a listed occupational disease or the employee must prove that the risk of contracting it was increased by working conditions.
The primary cause, esophageal adenocarcinoma, is not a listed occupational disease, and cancer generally is not compensable unless linked to specific carcinogenic working conditions, which was not proven here. However, the Court found that the ECC failed to adequately consider pneumonia, a co-cause of death listed on the certificate. Pneumonia is a qualifiedly listed occupational disease under specific conditions, including inhalation of noxious fumes or exposure to wetting and chilling.
The deceased’s janitorial duties involved the regular use of deleterious substances like muriatic acid, generating fumes, and tasks like sweeping that caused dust inhalation. Working in the congested, polluted area of Tondo and exposure to the elements also created risks of wetting and chilling. These conditions increased his risk of contracting pneumonia, satisfying the requirement for compensability under the Labor Code. While not all technical conditions for pneumonia were met, the Court relaxed strict adherence in favor of the worker, aligning with the state’s policy of affording maximum protection to labor. The ECC decision was reversed, and benefits were awarded.