ALBERTO C. CEREZO, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (REGIONAL HEALTH NO. 2, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN), RESPONDENTS.

This case came to us by a simple letter addressed to the Chief
Justice.  In his letter, Alberto C. Cerezo sought assistance in connection with his claim for
compensation which was denied by the Employees’
Compensation Commission in ECC Case No. 0934. Mindful of the constitutional
injunction that, “Free access to the courts shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty,” (Art. IV, Sec. 23) we directed the
petitioner to seek the assistance of the Citizens’ Legal Assistance Office
(CLAO) in filing an appropriate petition and, if necessary, to litigate as a
pauper.

In due time a motion to litigate as pauper was filed and granted;
the petition for review on certiorari of the decision in ECC 0934 was
duly received and respondents were required to submit comments which they did
in due time.

On July 20, 1979, we issued the following resolution:  “Considering the allegations contained,
the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari,
as well as the respective comments of the respondents, the Court resolved:  (a) to treat the herein petition for review
as a special civil action for certiorari; (b) to consider:  (1) respondents’
comments as ANSWERS to the petition; and (b) the case SUBMITTED for
decision.”

In its comment, the Government Service Insurance System says in
part:

“Respondent GSIS respectfully reiterates its submission in the
other employees’ compensation cases before this Honorable Court that petitioner
has no cause of action against it since it is only the decision of the ECC, not
the GSIS’ action of denial, that is under judicial review.  Petitioner himself only asks for review and
prays for the reversal of the ECC decision (Petition, pp. 1 and 5).  Article 181 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decree 626, provides as follows:

‘ART. 181.  Review.  – Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Commission
may be reviewed on certiorari by the Supreme Court on questions of law
upon petition of an aggrieved party within ten days from notice thereof.’  (Underscoring supplied.)

Evidently, whatever was the original action of the GSIS is of no
legal significance, much like the decision of the trial court in relation to
the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
Only the latter court is made a party respondent upon elevation of the
case on appeal to this Honorable Court. 
Even in such a case, the inclusion of the Court of Appeals as a party
respondent is not required.  (Concurring
Opinion of Mr. Justice Aquino in Nilsen
vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-27149, March 14, 1979)

Neither can the GSIS be deemed a necessary party because this
proceeding merely involves a judicial review of an administrative
decision.  The GSIS, as Administrator of
the State Insurance Fund, will naturally pay as a matter of course if the ECC
decision is set aside and supplanted by another decision favorable to the
herein petitioner.

It is noteworthy to mention that in previous employees’
compensation cases before this Honorable Court (e.g., L-45942, L-45919,
L-46271, L-46554 and L-46412), this Honorable Court dispensed with the comment
of the GSIS, the principal respondent ECC being duly impleaded
in those cases.  In L-45846, this
Honorable Court dispensed likewise with the filing of the memorandum by the
GSIS.

The thrust of the foregoing is that the GSIS should be dropped as a
party respondent in these proceedings.

This point is particularly important to the lawyers of the GSIS and
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel who, to their mind, are
unnecessarily burdened with numerous ECC cases in addition to their heavy
workload.”

We believe that the stand of the GSIS is well-taken and
accordingly it is hereby dropped from this case as a party respondent.

Petitioner Alberto Cerezo started to
work for the government as a laborer in 1941; on August 25, 1959, he rose to the rank of security guard of
Regional Health Office No. 2 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.  When he
suffered from degenerative osteoarthritis which incapacitated him, he retired
on July 24, 1975, after 30
years of service.  Thereafter, he applied
for compensation under the Labor Code, more specifically for income benefits
under P.D. No. 626 which took effect on January
1, 1975.  The provision of
that law which is relevant in this case reads: 
“‘Sickness’ means any illness definitely accepted as an
occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by
employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the
same is increased by working
conditions.” [Art. 166 (1), Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626.]

Petitioner’s claim was denied by the Senior Assistant Manager for
Underwriting and Claims of the GSIS on the ground that his ailment is not an
occupational disease.  A motion for
reconsideration was denied.  Thereafter,
petitioner went to the ECC which dismissed the claim which is the subject of
this review.

Preliminarily, it is noted that osteoarthritis is not listed by
the ECC as a compensable occupational disease. 
It remains therefore to be determined whether petitioner’s illness was
caused by his employment and the risk of its contraction was increased by his
working conditions.

The ECC took the position
that petitioner’s ailment is not an occupational disease for it has no specific
cause and employment factors are discounted in the development of the disease.  Upon the other hand, petitioner contends:

“x x x x.  It is true that as security guard, the
nature of my duties as well as the working conditions of my employment could
not have directly caused my ailment.  But
in the discharge of my duties especially when I am on night duty or even during
my afternoon duties, I was exposed to cold during the nights and these are the
exposures that really took place.  There
are times when it rains at night, there are the times
of cold seasons which persists until
the summer starts.  All these
contributed to have caused my sickness.

With
all these exposures to cold, does it not make a condition more changed or
altered thus wear and tear results more to a cummulated
trauma of everyday life? Temperature and humidity abnormalities during my tour
of duty as a guard in the night did more trauma to me which really contributed
to my physiologic process of aging.  If I
should have not been exposed to such abnormalities of temperature and
humidity, I know I should not have acquired such a given condition than this
that I acquired at this time of my life.”

We uphold petitioner’s
contention.  In Fortunata
Cadongog vs. Government Service Insurance System, ECC Case No. 0571, decided on
May 10, 1978,
the ECC held that although osteoarthritis
is not one of the occupational
diseases listed in Annex
“A” of the Rules implementing P.D. No. 626, as amended, it could be an occupational disease at least under the theory of increased risk.

In that case, Fortunata Cadongog started her government service in 1962 as a laborer in the Veteran’s Memorial Hospital in Quezon City up to the time of her
disability in 1976.  She worked in
different capacities such as, laundry helper, gardener, laundry machine
operator and presser-operator.  Receiving
a meager salary of P334.00 a month, she had been working under conditions not
conducive to health as she was exposed to excessive fatigue, irregular hours of
work, extremes of temperature, missing of meals and other similar conditions,
like prolonged standing position.

Relying on the opinion of Shryock and Swartout in their book YOU AND YOUR HEALTH, Vol. II, 1970
ed., p. 224, as follows:

“Osteoarthritis usually develops slowly and gradually in the
latter half of life.  It involves
degeneration and in one sense is a part of the aging process of the people
affected by it. Impaired circulation is probably a causative factor; and
improvement of the circulation in general, as well as in the joints, is one aim
in treatment.  The condition shows a
distinct hereditary tendency; but injuries, excessive body weight, and over
exertion of a sort that brings increased pressure on the joint, cartilages also
have a causative influence.  The joints
of the spine hips, knees, and fingers are most commonly affected.”

the ECC concluded
that Fortunata’s actual work experience played a
major role in the development of her ailments, particularly
osteoarthritis.  As a result she was
awarded income benefits for disability.

Petitioner’s work experience as narrated above justifies the same
conclusion which was reached in ECC Case No. 0571.  In making this conclusion, we have kept in
mind that the social and humane character of the law leans towards compassion
and compensability.  Advancing age, as in
this case, may have caused or contributed to the development of the ailment but
it is not a drawback for what is material and decisive is that the employment
contributed even in a small degree in aggravating the ailment.  (See Natividad
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, No. L-42340, Aug. 31, 1978, 85 SCRA 115.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed
and the petitioner is awarded income benefits for disability, after proper
computation, in accordance with P.D. No. 626, as amended.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., and
Santos, JJ.,
concur.

Antonio, J., agrees in the
opinion of J. Aquino that osteoarthritis is not an occupational disease.  However, in the case at bar, his existing
infirmity was aggravated by the nature of his work.  He therefore, concurs in the result.

Aquino, J., concurs in the result. Although He agree with the opinion of the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Solicitor General that osteoarthritis
is not an occupational disease, nevertheless, considering the plight of the
petitioner, the government, his employer, should set an example of doing social
justice by disregarding technicalities and paying him workmen’s compensation,
following the shibboleth that he who has less in life should have more in law.