ROGELIO H. MANDAPAT, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review the decision of the Employees’
Compensation Commission in ECC Case No. 0545 entitled “Noli
S. Mandapat vs, Government
Service Insurance System (Department of Education and Culture)” affirming
the decision of the Government Service Insurance System dismissing the claim
for compensation.^[1]

The petitioner, Rogelio H. Mandapat, is
the widow­er of the late Noli S. Mandapat,
who was a teacher at the Bolaoit
Elementary School, Malasique, Pangasinan. Noli S. Mandapat died on June 12, 1977 while her appeal was
pending in the Employees’ Compensation Commission.

The facts, as found by the Employees’ Compensation Commission,
are:

“This is a case of a thirty-two (32) years old female teacher
at the Bolaoit Elementary School, Malasique,
Pangasinan who, during the period of her employment,
contracted tumor at her right breast which was biopsied
as Intraductal Carci­noma, (R) Breast with Axillary Lymph Node Metastases.  On May
10, 1975, she under­went radical mastectomy at the Manila
Medical Center
with Dr. Redentor Pagtalunan
as her attending physician.

“The ensuing disability compelled her to file a compensation
claim with the Government Service Insurance System on the assumption that such
disability was the result of a work-connected ailment.  In a decision rendered on February 27, 1976,
the System disapproved her claim on the ground that claimant’s ailment is not
an occupational disease, primarily because it is not included in the list of
occupational diseases listed by the Commission and, also because medical
studies impute Cancer of the Breast to the action of estrogenic hormones, which
hastens its development in genetically susceptible individuals rather than to
factors of employment.”^[2]

The Employees’
Compensation Commission dismissed the claim because:

“After a thorough study of the record, we are convinced in the
validity of the System’s conclusion that the nature of claimant’s duties, as
well as the working conditions of her employment could not have directly caused
the ailment.  While it is admitted that the
cause of mammary cancer is not completely known, it is however the general
belief among medical authorities, that highly specialized biological active
mammary tissues under the influences of hormones (especially estrogen)
undergoes periodic hyperplasia and involution. 
Im­balances lead to mammary dysplasia or to
accentuated repair and pyperplasia that eventually
cross the threshold of neoplasia.  This is not mere speculation, since estrogens
act principally upon the ducts and ductules from
which most carcinomas arise.  (Anderson,
W.A.D.:  Pathology; Japan, Mosby Co. 5th Edition; 1966).

“Moreover, Breast Cancer is definitely not accepted as
occupational disease.  It is not the
direct or customary result of claimant’s occupations, neither was its
contraction increased by working conditions or by factors peculiar to her
employment.”^[3]

The Employees’ Compensation Commission decided the case under
Presidential Decree No. 626 as amended. 
This is error.

It is a fact that Noli S. Mandapat underwent radical mastectomy on May 10,
1975.  It is obvious that the
tumor in her right breast which was biopsied as Intraductal Carcinoma (R) Breast with Axillary
Lymph Node Metastases must have-supervened before 1975.

The onset of cancer is quiet and gradual, in contrast with many
diseases which appear suddenly, dramatically and demand attention.^[4]

It takes six to twelve months for a breast cancer 4 to grow from a size which can just be
found to the size usually encountered at the time of surgery.^[5]

In view of the foregoing, the claim of the peti­tioner must be decided under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.^[6]

The illness of Noli S. Mandapat supervened during her employment prior to the
Amended Labor Code.  Hence the
presumption of compensability, the principle of aggravation, the award of
attorney’s fees and the pay­ment
of administrative fees must be observed and applied.^[7]
The Employees’ Compensation Commission as the successor of the defunct
Workmen’s Compensation Commission is duty
bound to observe and apply the foregoing principles in passing upon workmen’s
com­pensation.^[8]

The employer of Noli S. Mandapat has not rebutted the disputable presumption that
the claim is compen­sable.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Employees’ Com­pensation
Commission is hereby set aside and the Govern­ment Service Insurance System is
ordered:

1. To pay the petitioner the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00)
as death compensation and the amount of P600.00 as attorney’s fees;

2. To reimburse the petitioner the medical expenses incurred by Noli S. Mandapat, supported by
proper receipts; and

3. To pay the amount of P61.00 as administrative fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro*,
and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 17-19.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 17-18.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 18-19.

^[4]
Illustrated Medical and Health Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p. 385.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 397.

^[6]
Fermin Cayco, et al. vs. Employees’ Com­pensation Commission, et al., G.R. NO. L-49755,
August 21, 1980.

^[7]
Santos vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, 75 SCRA 364

^[8]
Corales vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission and
G.S.I.S., 88 SCRA 547.

* Mr. Justice De Castro
was designated to sit with the First Division.