G.R. No. L-64802 September 23, 1985
Venusto Panotes, petitioner, vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission, Government Service Insurance System (Ministry of Education and Culture), respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Venusto Panotes, sought compensation benefits under P.D. 626, as amended, for the death of his wife, Agustina Garfin Panotes, a public school teacher who died from colonic malignancy or cancer of the colon. The Court initially granted the claim in a decision dated March 29, 1984. It ruled that the fatal disease was compensable, having been contracted due to, or with the risk of contracting it increased by, the deceased’s working conditions. The Court ordered the GSIS to pay death benefits, reimburse medical expenses, and cover funeral costs and attorney’s fees.
The respondent GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration. It argued that the award contravened the legal requirement of a reasonable work-connection for compensation claims, emphasizing that the cause of colon cancer is medically unknown. The GSIS contended that if the etiology of a disease is unknown, it cannot be declared work-connected under the increased-risk doctrine. It further challenged the award of attorney’s fees, suggesting it was not contemplated by law and that any such award should be limited.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the death from cancer of the colon, a disease of unknown etiology, is compensable under the Employees’ Compensation Act despite the absence of definitive proof of a specific work-related cause, and whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.

RULING

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed its original decision. On the compensability of the disease, the Court clarified the application of the increased-risk doctrine under Section 1(b), Rule III of the implementing rules of P.D. 626. For a non-listed illness like cancer of the colon, the claimant must show that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions. The degree of proof required is not absolute certainty but substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.
The Court cited its precedent in Cristobal vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission, where it was recognized that the exact cause of rectal carcinoma is unknown. This uncertainty does not preclude compensation. The Court found that the deceased teacher was exposed to unhygienic conditions, various chemicals, and intense heat, which are generally considered predisposing factors for cancer. Given that she started her employment in good health, the probability that these conditions increased her risk was sufficient to establish work-connection under the liberal construction mandated for social legislation.
Regarding attorney’s fees, the Court held the award was proper and within its discretion. The legal intent is to ensure the compensation receivable by the claimant is not diminished. Where fees are ordered to be paid by the employer, as here, the claimant’s award remains intact. The 10% award was deemed reasonable compensation for legal services necessary to prosecute the claim through judicial appeal, ensuring claimants can obtain competent legal representation. The denial of the motion is final.