EMILIA VDA. DE INGUILLO, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE), RESPONDENTS.

A review is sought herein of the Decision of the Employees’
Compensation Commission (ECC) affirming that of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) denying the claim for death benefits filed by the widow
of a public school janitor, who died of cancer of the esophagus and pneumonia.

Petitioner’s husband, the late Enrique V. Inguillo,
during his lifetime, worked as a janitor at the E. Jacinto Elementary School in
Tondo, Manila.  He was in the government service for
thirty-one (31) years.

From 24 February to 5
June 1978, he was confined at the Veteran’s Memorial
Hospital on “complaints of
difficulty in swallowing of food, solid and liquid, accompanied by chest pains,
difficulty of breathing, fever and productive cough.” He died on 20 June 1978, at the age of 52,
the cause of death being attributed to “Terminal malignancy, Poorly
differentiated Esophageal Edenocarcinoma with Bone
and Cervical Metastasis, Pneumonia” (Certificate of Death, Annex
“A”, Petition).

The surviving spouse, Emilia Inguillo, filed a claim for death benefits with the
GSIS.  The claim was denied on the ground
that the cause of death, cancer of the esophagus, is not an occupational
disease.  A motion for reconsideration of
the GSIS decision having been denied, claimant-petitioner appealed to
respondent ECC.

On 9 August 1979
respondent ECC affirmed the GSIS denial and dismissed petitioner’s claim.

Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioner’s position is anchored on the provisions of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, particularly, on the rule on controversion,
the presumption of compensability, and the principle of aggravation.

Considering, however, that the deceased was confined in the
hospital from 24 February 1978
to 5 June 1978, and that he
later died on 20 June 1978,
and absent any evidence as to when his
ailment was contracted, it is the new Labor Code that becomes the governing
law.  As specifically provided in Article
208 of said Code, its provisions cover “injury, sickness, disability or death
occurring on or after January 1, 1975.” The recent case of Rosales vs. ECC
(G.R. No. 46443, June 28, 1988) implemented that provision when it held that
“in workmen’s compensation cases, the governing law is determined by the
date on which the claimant contracted his illness.”

The concepts relied on by petitioner under the former Workmen’s
Compensation Act, therefore, have ceased to apply, having been expressly
discarded under the compensation scheme in the new Labor Code (Sarmiento vs. ECC, et al., G.R. No. 65680, May 11, 1988).

We come now to the primary issue, that is, whether or not the
death of petitioner’s husband is compensable under the Labor Code.

Article 167(I) of the Labor Code defines compensable
“sickness” thus:

“(I) ‘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. 
For this purpose, the Commission is empowered to determine and approve
occupational diseases and work-related illnesses that may be considered
compensable based on peculiar hazards of employment (PD 1368, May 1, 1978)

Section 1(b), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’
Compensation further amplifies:

“(b) For the sickness and the resulting disability or death to
be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease
listed under Annex ‘A’ of these Rules with the conditions set therein
satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease
is increased by the working conditions.”

Definitely, “esophageal edenocarcinoma
with bone and cervical metastasis” can not be considered as an occupational
disease since it is not one of those listed under Annex “A” of the mentioned Rules.  In the recent case of Raro
vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission (G.R. No. 58445, April 27, 1989), it was
held that cancer ailments, except for a specified few, are not
compensable.  It is a disease that
strikes people in general.  The nature of
a person’s employment appears to have no relevance.  In Navalta vs.
Government Service Insurance Systems (G.R. No. 46684, April 27, 1988), this
Court further elucidated that unless it be shown that a particular form of
cancer is caused by specific working conditions (e.g. chemical fumes, nuclear
radiation, asbestos dust, etc.) we can not conclude that it was the employment
which increased the risk of contracting the disease.

We note, however, that respondent ECC failed to adequately take
into consideration that there was another cause of death, which was
“pneumonia,” Under the same Annex “A” of the Amended Rules
on Employees’ Compensation, pneumonia is a qualifiedly occupational disease
“under all the following conditions:”

“(a)     There must be an honest and definite
history of wetting and chilling during the course of employment, also
industrial injury to the chest wall with or without rib fracture, or inhalation
of noxious gases, fumes and other deleterious substances in the place of work.

“(b)     There must be a direct connection between
the offending agent or event and the worker’s illness.

“(c)     The signs of consolidation should appear
soon (within a few hours) and the symptoms of initial chilling and fever should
at least be twenty-four (24) hours after the injury.

“(d)     The patient must present one of the
following findings within a few days of the accident:

(1)        Severe chill and fever.

(2)        Headache and pain, agonizing in
character in the side.

(3)        Short, dry painful cough with
blood-tinged expectoration.

(4)        Physical signs of
consolidation with fine rates” (ECC Resolution No. 432 dated July 20,
1988).

Noteworthy is the fact that the decedent’s complaint of
“difficulty in swallowing of food, solid and liquid” was accompanied
by “chest pains, difficulty of breathing, fever and productive
cough.” The latter are clearly some of the above-specified symptoms of
pneumonia, which by itself can also be a killer disease (Harrison’s Principles
of Internal Medicine, 8th ed., pp. 802-804). 
Further, a review of the deceased’s work activities, as janitor, will
show that they included the regular use of “deleterious substances”
such as muriatic acid, the fumes from which are
inhaled when used in cleaning and clearing of toilet bowls and unclogging of
toilet pipes and plumbing connections. 
The deceased also
performed other varied manual work such as sweeping, scrubbing and mopping
school corridors, with the resultant inhalation of a lot of dust, lifting heavy
objects, painting classrooms, preparing seats for pupils during school
programs, as well as going to and from his place of work thus exposing him to occasional “wetting and chilling”
from downpours and rains.  The
combination of all these, coupled with the fact that the decedent was working
in Tondo, a depressed and congested area
characterized by unsanitary conditions and heavy pollution, must have lowered
his resistance to fight the microbes causative of pneumonia.  The risk of contracting the said disease,
therefore, was increased by his working conditions, thereby satisfying an
additional condition for compensability.

While, concededly, “all” of the qualifying conditions
to consider pneumonia compensable do not concur, there is substantial
compliance therewith, added to the fact that punctilious adherence to stringent
technical rules may be relaxed in the interest of the working man, who has less
in life, and in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum
aid and protection to labor (Acosta vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission, L-­55464,
November 12, 1981, 109 SCRA 209).

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED,
and public respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioner and/or her heirs
the proper benefits for the death of Enrique V. Inguillo,
plus attorney’s fees of ten (10%) percent of the amount recoverable.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.