PRIMITIVO C. COLLARGA, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

Collarga versus Employees Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Primitivo Collarga against the Employees Compensation Commission and the Social Security System. Collarga, a former crusher operator at a cement plant, sought compensation benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626, the Employees Compensation Law, for pulmonary tuberculosis that he claimed was service-connected. The Commission, affirming the System, denied his claim. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a compensable occupational disease and a disease that merely happens to afflict a former worker, and because it reminds the Bar candidate that sympathy for the claimant must be balanced against the solvency of the State Insurance Fund.

Procedural History

Collarga filed his claim for compensation benefits with the Social Security System in 2002. The System denied the claim, reasoning that there was no longer an employer-employee relationship when his tuberculosis was diagnosed in 1999 and when he qualified for permanent partial disability benefits in 2000, and that the claim was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period under Article 201 of Presidential Decree Number 626. On appeal, the Employees Compensation Commission rendered its decision on 26 March 2003, denying the appealed decision and dismissing the claim for lack of merit. Collarga then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, raising two issues: whether his ailment after retirement could still be attributed to his employment, and whether his claim was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period.

Facts

Primitivo Collarga was employed by Solid Cement Corporation in Antipolo City as a crusher operator from December 1987 to February 1998. His duties involved operating and tending the crusher and its auxiliary equipment for the limestone and silica lines, monitoring gauges, inspecting for abnormalities, performing minor repairs, and coordinating with the quarry contractor. The work exposed him to dust and silica in the cement factory.

In 1995, during his employment, he developed pulmonary tuberculosis, minimal. But chest x-ray results dated 9 August 1996 and 1 September 1997 showed an essentially normal chest, meaning the tuberculosis was no longer present. On 28 February 1998, at the age of forty-two, he availed of the company's early retirement program. His service record did not indicate that he stopped working by reason of disability.

After retirement, on 22 July 1999, a chest x-ray showed pulmonary tuberculosis, minimal, and on 8 August 2000, pulmonary tuberculosis, moderately advanced. On account of this, he was granted permanent partial disability benefits under the Social Security Law for twenty-three months commencing 18 September 2000. Believing his ailment was service-connected, he filed a claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626 in 2002. The System and the Commission both denied him.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner's pulmonary tuberculosis, diagnosed after his retirement, could still be attributed to his employment so as to be compensable under Presidential Decree Number 626.
• Whether or not the petitioner's claim for employees compensation benefits was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, on the grounds for compensability, provides:

Section. 1. Grounds. - (a) For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. (ECC Resolution No. 2799, July 25, 1984).

This is the test the Court applies: for pulmonary tuberculosis, a listed occupational disease, the disease must arise out of and be contracted in the course of employment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is bereft of merit. The phrase arising out of refers to the origin or cause of the injury or accident, while in the course of employment means the injury took place within the period of employment. Here, the petitioner tested positive for pulmonary tuberculosis, minimal, on 22 July 1999 and for pulmonary tuberculosis, moderately advanced, on 8 August 2000, both after he voluntarily retired. The disease was therefore not a consequence of his employment, and there was no showing that he contracted tuberculosis before retirement or that he retired because of disability.

The Court distinguished the case of Diopenes versus the Government Service Insurance System, which the petitioner relied upon. There, the second stroke was merely the consequence of the first stroke suffered while still in service. Here, there was no showing that the second infection in 1999 was connected with or the consequence of the first incidence in 1995, and the x-ray results of 1996 and 1997 showed he no longer had tuberculosis. The Court also noted that while exposure to dust and dirt is a predisposing cause of tuberculosis, a person still needs to be exposed to infectious bacteria to contract it, and the glaring length of time between retirement in February 1998 and the occurrence of tuberculosis in July 1999 defeated the claim. The Court acknowledged sympathy for the petitioner but held that the parameters set by law made him undeserving of compensation, invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex, the law is harsh but it is the law, and stressing the need to protect the State Insurance Fund from spurious claims.

On the second issue, having found that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation benefits, the Court held that it need not belabor the question of prescription.

Doctrine

For a compensation claim for pulmonary tuberculosis, a listed occupational disease, to prosper, the disease must arise out of and be contracted in the course of employment. Arising out of refers to the origin or cause of the injury, and in the course of employment means the injury took place within the period of employment. A disease diagnosed after voluntary retirement, with no showing that it was contracted during service or that retirement was due to disability, is not compensable. Sympathy for the claimant must be balanced against the equally vital interest of denying undeserving claims, lest payment to claimants not intended by law to be compensated endanger the stability and liquidity of the State Insurance Fund.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, denying Collarga's claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a post-retirement disease is not compensable absent proof that it arose out of and in the course of employment. Examiners use this case to test the occupational disease test and the balancing of worker sympathy against the integrity of the State Insurance Fund.