G.R. No. L-50295 October 23, 1979
Alberto C. Cerezo, petitioner, vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System (Regional Health No. 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto C. Cerezo, a government security guard, retired in 1975 after 30 years of service due to degenerative osteoarthritis. He filed a claim for disability income benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) denied his claim, ruling his ailment was not an occupational disease. The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the denial, holding osteoarthritis has no specific cause and employment factors are discounted in its development. Cerezo elevated the case via a letter to the Supreme Court, which treated it as a special civil action for certiorari. Preliminarily, the GSIS moved to be dropped as a party respondent, arguing only the ECC decision is subject to judicial review.
Cerezo contended that while his duties did not directly cause his ailment, his working conditions as a security guard, particularly prolonged exposure to cold, rain, and humidity during night duties, contributed to the physiological wear and tear that aggravated his osteoarthritis. He argued these exposures altered his condition and contributed to the cumulative trauma beyond normal aging.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s degenerative osteoarthritis, though not a listed occupational disease, is compensable as his employment increased the risk of contracting or aggravating the ailment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the ECC decision and awarded disability benefits. The Court first addressed the procedural matter, agreeing with the GSIS that only the ECC is a proper party respondent in a judicial review of its decision under Article 181 of the Labor Code. The GSIS was accordingly dropped from the case.
On the merits, the legal standard under Article 166(1) of the Labor Code, as amended, requires that for a non-listed illness like osteoarthritis to be compensable, the employee must prove it was caused by employment and the risk of contraction was increased by working conditions. The Court upheld Cerezo’s contention. It cited the ECC’s own precedent in Fortunata Cadongog (ECC Case No. 0571), where compensation was granted for osteoarthritis because the claimant’s work experience—involving excessive fatigue, irregular hours, and extremes of temperature—played a major role in developing the ailment.
Applying this rationale, the Court found Cerezo’s long service as a security guard, with its attendant exposures to cold and humidity during night shifts, justified the conclusion that his employment contributed to aggravating his osteoarthritis. The Court emphasized the social and humane character of the compensation law leans toward compassion. Even if advancing age contributed to the ailment, compensability is established if the employment contributed in any degree, however small, to its aggravation. Thus, the decision appealed from was reversed.