G.R. No. L-57341. January 18, 1982.
LOUELLA G. JIMENEZ, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Louella G. Jimenez, widow of Leonardo J. Jimenez, filed a claim for death benefits after her husband, a former employee of the Philippine National Railways (PNR), passed away. Leonardo Jimenez served PNR from 1961, holding positions as a policeman, security guard, and finally a researcher-analyst. His duties involved investigation, surveillance, and attending court hearings. In January 1975, he underwent radioactive iodine treatment at the Philippine General Hospital for follicular carcinoma of the thyroid gland. He was later admitted to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center, where his condition was confirmed as papillo follicular carcinoma with metastasis. He died on June 23, 1978.
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) denied the claim, a decision affirmed by the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC). The ECC ruled that thyroid carcinoma is not a listed occupational disease under the applicable rules (PD 626, as amended). It found no proof that the deceased’s employment increased his risk of contracting the disease, noting that the ailment’s etiology is unknown but often linked to drug exposure, which was not indicated in his work.

ISSUE

Whether the claim for death benefits filed by the widow of Leonardo J. Jimenez is compensable.

RULING

Yes, the claim is compensable. The Supreme Court set aside the ECC decision and ordered GSIS to pay benefits. The legal logic hinges on the applicable law governing the claim’s accrual. The Court found that the deceased’s illness, diagnosed and treated in January 1975, supervened prior to January 1, 1975, the effectivity date of the new Employees’ Compensation Act (PD 626). Therefore, the governing law is the old Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a disputable presumption exists that a claim is compensable if the illness occurred during employment. The burden shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence. In this case, the employer, PNR, adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption that the death was work-connected. The cause of the ailment is immaterial under the old law; what matters is that it occurred during employment and disabled the worker.
The Court rejected GSIS’s contention that liability should fall solely on the employer (PNR) and not the State Insurance Fund. It clarified that both funds are government funds, and payment from the GSIS is proper to ensure the claimant is paid, leaving any issue of reimbursement between GSIS and PNR to be resolved separately. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to death benefits, reimbursement for medical and funeral expenses, attorney’s fees, and administrative costs.