EULALIO GALANIDA, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

 Before us is a petition
for review on certiorari of the Employees’ Compensation Commission’s
(ECC) decision affirming the denial by the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) of the petitioner’s claim for disability compensation under P.D. 626.

Petitioner Eulalio Galanida
started working for the government on November
8, 1948 as a messenger/janitor at the bureau of Agricultural
Extension Office in Tagbilaran
City.  Subsequently, he was promoted to Clerk and,
finally, to Administrative Officer II of the Ministry of Agriculture until he
retired on December 10, 1983.

Galanida’s medical records reveal that sometime in
1955, he complained of facial distortion and numbness accompanied by the
blurring of vision and headache. 
According to the petitioner, he suffered irregular sleep and heart palpitation,
as well as pain in both extremities for several
years.  From May 15 to 29, 1972, he was confined at the Bohol Provincial Hospital for hemorrhoidectomy
which was performed by Dr. Miguel C. Froilan.

On January
18, 1983, the
petitioner filed a claim for disability
benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 with the GSIS.  On March 9, 1983, the GSIS disapproved the claim on the
ground that the claimant’s ailments are not occupational diseases and there was
no showing that his work had increased the risk of contracting the same.  The petitioner elevated his case to the ECC
and on November 27, 1984, the ECC affirmed the decision of the GSIS.

After a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, we find no justifiable reason to reverse the decision of the ECC.

The petitioner’s ailments were diagnosed to be the following:

xxx                                        xxx                                           xxx

“(1)  Bells Palsy – is an acute lower Motor Neuron Palsy of the facial nerve,
characterized by pain, weakness or paralysis of the affected side of the face (2) Anxiety Neurosis – is a progressive disintegration of personal instability arising in the course of the intercurrent
illness.  (3) Peripheral Neuritis – is a
syndrome of sensory motor, reflect and basomotor
reflex symptoms produced by lesion of nerve root on peripheral nerves.  (p. 27, Rollo)

The
above-mentioned diseases are not among those listed as occupational diseases
under Annex “A” of
P.D. 626 nor has the petitioner shown proofs that the risk of contracting the
diseases was increased by his employment’s working conditions as Administrative Officer II of the Ministry of Agriculture
in Manila as provided by Section 1(b), Rule III, Amended Rules on Employees’
Compensation.  As  we have repeatedly held, the doctrines of aggravation and presumption of
compensability under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act are no longer provided
by law under the present social insurance scheme (Erese v.
Employees’ Compensation Commission,
138 SCRA 192).

Considering that the
illnesses are not occupational diseases, it was, therefore, necessary for the petitioner to present proof that he contracted them in the course of
his employment at the Ministry of Agriculture. 
Unfortunately, he failed in this regard. 
In his petition for review submitted
to the Employees’ Compensation Commission dated May 16, 1983, the petitioner
alleges that the “cleaning of rooms as janitor and subsequently the
amount of paperwork thereby forcing him to render overtime, increased the risk of contracting said ailments.” This is a mere allegation
which needs
to be proved. 
He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.  (People v. Lumayok,
139 SCRA 1) Despite the request made by the respondent (letter dated July 9, 1983, rollo, p. 39) the petitioner failed to submit evidence or
proofs such as a certification signed by the employer as to inclusive dates of leave of absences or
sick leaves, medical certificates, hospital records and/or clinical records
of confinement/consultation so as
to substantiate his claim for compensation under P. D. 626.  There is absolutely no showing how the work
of a janitor increased the risk of contracting the petitioner’s
ailments.  Moreover, the petitioner’s
attending physician, Dr. Segundo
Racho categorically stated that the petitioner’s ailments
are not work-connected.  Hence, the petitioner’s claim for
disability compensation under
P.D. 626 has no factual
basis.

Even if we applied the
ruling in Corales v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (88 SCRA 547), as contended by the petitioner, his claim
for compensation will still not prosper.

The records show that the symptoms of the petitioner’s ailments upon which he could
base his claim for compensation under
the Corales doctrine
became manifest in 1955.  His right to claim for compensation, therefore,
accrued as early as that date.  Hence, the law to be
applied under his contention would be the Workmen’s Compensation Act following
the principle that in workmen’s compensation
commission cases, the governing law is to
be determined by the date on which the claimant
contracted his illness.  (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation of the Philippines v. Dela Rosa, 146
SCRA 222).  The right founded on statute
prescribes in ten (10) years which are counted from the date of disability
(Leonardo v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 88 SCRA 58).

In the instant case, the
petitioner alleged that in the years 1954-1955,
he was treated by several doctors
and confined twice in the hospital for the ailments earlier mentioned.  He, therefore, had until 1964-1965 within
which to file his claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.  And even if we counted the ten-year period
from the date of his hospitalization for hemorrhoidectomy
on May 15 to 29, 1972, the claim filed only in January 18, 1983 is obviously beyond the prescriptive
period.  Moreover, hemorrhoidectomy
has never been mentioned as the basis of his claim.  The petitioner, therefore, failed to
seasonably raise his claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, assuming its applicability.

Furthermore, the fact
that the petitioner continued working until he compulsorily retired on December
10, 1983 militates against his right to disability compensation.  In the case of Corales
v. Employees Compensation Commission (supra), we held:

“It must be noted that We disallowed petitioner’s claim for
disability compensation because of the undisputed fact that petitioner, despite
his disabling illness of PTB —
medically speaking — was able to physically pursue his line of work the very
day he reached the compulsory age of retirement — 65; and therefore cannot be
awarded disability benefits under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
as amended, which observes the wage
loss factor as basis of the
granting of disability benefits for it commands that ‘x x x
No compensation shall be allowed for the first three calendar days of incapacity resulting from
an injury except the benefits provided for in the preceding section; but if the
incapacity extends beyond that period, compensation shall be allowed from the
first day of such incapacity.  x x x’ (Section 14, Act 3428, as
amended).  Consequently, We ruled
that, despite OUR finding that petitioner’s illness and disability was
work-connected, he is not entitled to disability benefits because his illness
and/or medical disability did not result in any wage loss or
diminution of earnings as it is undisputed from the records that he not
only continued to receive the same rate of salary (P3223.58 per annum) he was
receiving in 1965 when he was initially found afflicted with PTB but also
thereafter enjoyed increases of salaries and at the time of his compulsory
retirement in 1975, his rate was P5095.20 per annum; although he did not
receive any promotion in rank or position, from 1965 to the year of his
retirement.  x x
x” (at p. 555).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.  The decision of the Employees’ Compensation
Commission is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.