G.R. No. L-35800; July 23, 1987
ROSALINDA PA-AC, for herself and in behalf of the minors, MARCELO, JR., GENOVEVA, DOMINADOR, BONIFACIO and ROSALINDA, all surnamed PA-AC, petitioners, vs. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

The deceased, Marcelo Pa-ac, worked for Itogon-Suoyoc Mines, Inc. for seventeen years, from 1951 until his death in 1968. His roles progressed from laborer to mill general capataz, involving supervision and various mill operations. On June 14, 1968, Pa-ac attended a wedding party, consumed alcohol and fatty food, and became intoxicated. He was advised by a company safety engineer not to report for his afternoon shift. While walking home, he was found dizzy and shaking by co-workers, rushed to the company hospital, and died within hours from myocardial infarction. His second wife, Rosalinda Pa-ac, filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for herself and their five children.
The Workmen’s Compensation Section Chief initially granted the claim, applying the presumption of compensability, finding that the deceased’s work involved strain and exposure, and his fatal illness occurred while he was on his way to work. However, the respondent employer appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which reversed the award. The Commission found no substantial evidence that the duties, described as light supervisory work, directly caused or aggravated the heart attack, noting the illness was not pre-existing and the fatal attack was his first.

ISSUE

Whether the death of Marcelo Pa-ac from myocardial infarction is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision and denied the claim. The legal logic centered on the application and rebuttal of the presumption of compensability under Section 2 of Act No. 3428. While the law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an illness arising or aggravated in the course of employment is compensable, this presumption was successfully overturned by the employer. The Court found substantial evidence showing the deceased’s duties as a capataz were light and did not involve strenuous physical exertion that could have directly caused myocardial infarction. Medical opinions presented indicated the illness occurs without relation to effort or discernible clinical events. Furthermore, the circumstances immediately preceding his death—consumption of alcohol and fatty food—were not work-related. The Court emphasized that the Act, while social legislation to be construed liberally in favor of workers, does not make the employer an insurer against all accidents. Compensation is only for injuries arising from risks peculiar to or incidental to the employment. Here, the risk of a heart attack under these circumstances was not traceable in a special degree to his particular employment.