GR L 52133; (June, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-52133 June 23, 1983
NORMA B. NAJERA (deceased) substituted by her husband MANUEL NAJERA, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents.
FACTS
Norma B. Najera was employed as a ward nurse at the National Orthopedic Hospital starting April 1, 1968. In 1973, she was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the cervix, for which she underwent surgery and subsequent cobalt and radium therapy. She later returned to work but was hospitalized again in September 1975 for a recto-vaginal fistula, a complication attributed to her prior radiation treatment. She filed a claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 (the New Labor Code) in November 1975. The GSIS denied her claim, stating her ailment was not work-related nor an occupational disease. Najera died on March 10, 1976. The Employees’ Compensation Commission affirmed the GSIS denial on March 31, 1976. Her husband, Manuel Najera, subsequently filed this petition for review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the deceased’s claim is governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Republic Act No. 3428 ) or by the provisions of the New Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 626), and consequently, whether her illness and subsequent death are compensable.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission and held the claim compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The legal logic centered on the determination of the applicable law. The Court found that Najera’s illness, adenocarcinoma of the cervix, had its onset in 1973, which was prior to the effectivity of the New Labor Code on January 1, 1975. Under settled jurisprudence, where the illness supervened during the effectivity of the old law, the claim is governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, regardless of the date of filing. The fact that the claim was filed after the transitional deadline of March 31, 1975, did not bar its application, as the prescriptive period under the old law was ten years.
Applying the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Court invoked the presumption of compensability. Since Najera was in good health upon employment and her illness supervened in the course of her employment, and her employer failed to controvert the claim, the illness was presumed to be work-connected. The burden to rebut this presumption shifted to the employer, which it failed to overcome. The medical opinion suggesting no relation between her work as a nurse and cervical cancer could not prevail over this legal presumption. The Court emphasized the Act’s character as social legislation, warranting a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker. Consequently, the Court directed the National Orthopedic Hospital to pay compensation benefits, refund medical expenses, and cover administrative costs.