MIGUEL ACOSTA AND CESAR ACOSTA, PETITIONERS, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE, RESPONDENTS.

Acosta versus Employees Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Miguel Acosta and his son Cesar Acosta against the Employees Compensation Commission, the Government Service Insurance System, and the Ministry of Education and Culture. The petitioners challenge the denial of a claim for employees' compensation benefits arising from the death of Fe Acosta, a public school classroom teacher, who died of carcinoma of the ovary. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's statement on how liberally the compensation law must be read in favor of the worker, and on the degree of proof required when the disease is not an occupational one but a borderline case.

Procedural History

Miguel Acosta filed a claim for employees' compensation benefit with the Government Service Insurance System relative to the death of his wife. The System denied the claim, and on reconsideration it stood its ground. Acosta then appealed to the Employees Compensation Commission, which affirmed the denial in a decision dated September 18, 1980. Not satisfied, Miguel Acosta, impleading his surviving minor child Cesar Acosta as co-petitioner, filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which reversed the Commission.

Facts

Fe Acosta was a classroom teacher under the Ministry of Education and Culture. She began working for the government on July 11, 1949, and at the time her ailment arose she was assigned to the Asingan Central School in Pangasinan.

In the first week of March 1978 she complained of lumbar pain and enlargement of the abdomen. On April 18, 1978 she was confined at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, where her illness was diagnosed as endometrioid carcinoma of the ovaries, stage three. The disease forced her to retire at the age of fifty-one, reached its terminal stage, and she died on October 2, 1978.

The System denied the claim on the ground that the fatal ailment was not in the least causally related to her employment, that it was not an occupational disease, and that the risk of contracting it was not increased by her working conditions. Its medical officer said the ailment has something to do with hormonal influence, infection, and familial tendency. The Commission affirmed, stressing that the predisposing factors were not inherent in or peculiar to her employment, and that even her attending physician, when asked whether the illness was caused by the employee's duties, answered no. The petitioners countered that her duties included field work such as youth activities, Girl Scouts camporals in open fields, physical education programs, and barangay development activities, performed even during her menstrual periods and exposing her to heat, rain, and moisture, which lowered her body resistance.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of the deceased from carcinoma of the ovary is compensable under the employees' compensation law, as a borderline case where the risk of contracting the disease was increased by her working conditions.
• Whether or not the petitioners complied with the required degree of proof under the theory of increased risk.
• Whether or not the opinion of the attending physician, that the illness was not caused by the employee's duties, should prevail over the presumption that the illness arose out of or was aggravated by the employment.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, the present law on compensation, which the Court describes in these terms:

Under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, the present law on compensation, the listed occupational diseases are compensable when the conditions contained therein are met, and certain diseases are allowed to be compensable whenever the claimant can prove that the risks of contracting the disease are increased by the working conditions of the employment of the deceased.

This is the framework that governs the case, because ovarian carcinoma is not a listed occupational disease, so the claim must rise or fall on the increased risk theory.

The Court also invokes the policy of compassionate interpretation adopted by the Commission in its Resolution Number 233, dated March 16, 1977, as quoted in the earlier case of Cristobal versus Employees Compensation Commission:

The respondent Commission under Resolution Number 223 dated March 16, 1977, adopted as a policy, the institution of a more compassionate interpretation of the restrictive provisions of Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended by its administering agencies, the Social Security System and the Government Service Insurance System, with respect to among others, Myocardial Infarction and other borderline cases.

This policy is the basis for treating the deceased's ailment as a borderline case entitled to a liberal reading.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the death is compensable. It found that the deceased was in perfect health when she joined the government service in 1949, and that her out-of-campus activities, exposing her to heat and rain, contributed to the deterioration of her health and weakened her resistance. It noted that the System itself conceded in its comment that the ailment has no relation at all to the work of the deceased as a public school teacher except perhaps by way of aggravation. From that concession the Court reasoned that once a situation of aggravation arises, there exists a causal relation between her work and her ailment. Since the medical officer admitted that infection is one cause of ovarian cancer, the lowered resistance of the deceased made her more susceptible to infection.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners substantially complied with the required degree of proof under the theory of increased risk. It stressed that the ailment is a borderline case under the compassionate policy, and that to require the petitioners to prove the actual causes of the cancer would be inconsistent with the liberal interpretation of the labor law. The Court put the standard thus:

In compensation cases, the evidence of the test as to the relation of the work to the ailment is probability and not certainty.

It added that since the exact origin of practically all types of cancer is not yet determined, ordinary persons cannot be expected to prove the real cause of the ailment when the experts themselves are still in the dark.

On the third issue, the Court did not allow the attending physician's negative answer to sever the death from the employment. It held that the claim should be given favorable consideration, and that to deny the benefits would render meaningless the constitutional guarantees in favor of the workingmen. It also observed that the records do not show when the ailment was contracted, since it was only found in April 1978, after the effectivity of the New Labor Code, and that construing the law liberally in favor of the workers, the petitioners should be awarded the benefits prayed for.

Doctrine

• Under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, a disease not listed as occupational is still compensable when the claimant proves that the risks of contracting it are increased by the working conditions of the employment.
• The degree of proof required is substantial evidence, showing that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job.
• In compensation cases, the test of the relation between the work and the ailment is probability, not certainty.
• Where the employer concedes the possibility of aggravation, a causal relation between the work and the ailment arises, and the claim should be granted.
• Borderline cases fall under the policy of compassionate interpretation, in consonance with the State policy to give maximum aid and protection to labor.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission and directed the Government Service Insurance System to pay the petitioners twelve thousand pesos as death benefits and one thousand two hundred pesos as attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line that in compensation cases the test of the relation of the work to the ailment is probability and not certainty. Examiners use this case to test the increased risk theory for non-occupational and borderline diseases, and the liberal, compassionate reading of the compensation law in favor of the worker.