G.R. No. L-58445 April 27, 1989
ZAIDA G. RARO, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zaida G. Raro was employed as a clerk by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences. After about four years of service, she began suffering from severe headaches and blurring of vision, which led to a diagnosis of a brain tumor. Her husband filed a claim for disability benefits with the GSIS, which was denied. The denial was affirmed by the Employees’ Compensation Commission on appeal. The petitioner argued that since the causes of brain tumor are medically unknown, it should be presumed compensable under the employees’ compensation law, especially as she contracted it during her employment.
The core legal conflict presented involves the interpretation of the current compensation scheme under the Labor Code. The petitioner, invoking principles of social justice and liberality, contends that for diseases of unknown origin, the impossibility of proving a work connection should not bar compensation. The respondents maintain that the law expressly requires the claimant to prove that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions, and absent such proof, the claim must fail.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a brain tumor, the causes of which are unknown to medical science but which was contracted during employment, is compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended (the Labor Code), without positive proof of increased risk due to working conditions.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission. The ruling is anchored on the explicit provisions of the prevailing law. Under Article 167 of the Labor Code, as amended, for a sickness not listed as an occupational disease, it is compensable only if the employee proves that the risk of contracting it was increased by the working conditions. The Court emphasized that the legal regime had shifted from the old Workmen’s Compensation Act, which employed a presumption of compensability, to the current system which places the burden of proof on the claimant.
The Court rejected the argument that an impossibility of proof due to medical uncertainty warrants a presumption of compensability. To create such a presumption would be to legislate from the bench and contravene the clear statutory requirement for positive proof. The Court noted that while certain cancers are listed as occupational diseases when linked to specific hazards (e.g., brain cancer for vinyl chloride workers), the petitioner’s employment as a clerk did not involve such identified risks. The decision clarifies that the principle of increased risk requires demonstrable, not presumed, evidence connecting the working conditions to the disease. Therefore, in the absence of proof that her employment increased the risk of developing a brain tumor, the claim is not compensable under the law.