ZENAIDA SANTARIN, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (COMMISSION ON AUDIT), RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for review the petitioner seeks the reversal of
the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission which affirmed the dismissal by the Government
Service Insurance System of her claim for compensation benefits.

The background facts are not disputed.  As summarized by the Government Corporate
Counsel they are:

“Petitioner’s husband, the late Demetrio
Santarin, was employed as helper-filer of the
Commission on Audit for more than thirteen
years.  His duties as helper-filer included bundling newspapers, magazines and other publications for distribution,
carrying files from departments to
the records division, carrying
vouchers and letters of the department to the records division and
helping in the operation of the mimeograph and xerox
machines.

“The ECC made a finding that the deceased had been suffering
from asthma for the past 20 years, more or less.  On November 10, 1975, while inside
the office, he developed acute respiratory
distress associated with chest
and back pains, aggravated by inspiration and expectoration of yellowish
phlegm.  The following day, he was
brought to the UP-PGH Medical Center, and on November
13, 1975, he died of cor pulmonale due to chronic obstructive lung disease, probably
status asthmaticus. 
He was also found to be afflicted with pneumonitis.

“Petitioner filed a claim for employee’s compensation which
the GSIS denied on March 2, 1976, on
the ground that the ailments of the deceased are not occupational diseases as contemplated under the new Labor
Code.  On appeal, the Employees’
Compensation (ECC) (sic) rendered
a decision on March 15, 1976 affirming the decision of the GSIS.” (Rollo, pp. 90-91)

Respondents admit that under the facts of the case, the petitioner
may be entitled to compensation benefits under the former Workmen’s
Compensation Act as amended but not under the provisions on the Employees’
Compensation and State Insurance Fund found in Title Two of the Labor
Code.  Thus, the Employees’ Compensation
Commission stated in its decision:

“The claim for income benefits
for death filed by the deceased’s widow, appellant herein, was denied by the
respondent System in its letter-decision dated March 2, 1976 on the ground
that the ’cause of your husband’s death, Status Asthmaticus
and Pneumonitis, are not occupational diseases.’ The
System further stated that ‘(t)he nature of your
husband’s duties as Helper-Filer as well as the working conditions of his
employment could not have directly caused his ailments which led to his
death.  At most, they could have
just aggravated his condition which under the present Employees’ Compensation Program, is no longer compensable.’ The appellant’s request for reconsideration which was addressed
to the President and forwarded to the respondent System, was likewise denied on June 1, 1976.

“It appears on record that the deceased had been asthmatic for
twenty (20) years, more or less, until his demise.  It is thus apparent that, having worked only
for thirteen (13) years with the government up to his death, he had already contacted
his fatal ailment long before he joined the government
service.  In the face of this
incontrovertible fact, it is therefore not safe to say that the cause or causes
of his sickness emanated from the nature or conditions of his employment as,
granted that there existed in his employment factors conducive to the
development of the disease, they could not be correctly pinpointed as the
factors that directly caused the disease since it had already its onset long
prior to the decedent’s exposure
to them.  This conclusion finds further
support in the negative answer of the deceased’s attending physician to the
question of whether or not the illness
was directly caused by the employee’s duties (Part III, Attending Physician’s Certification).  If at all, what looms clear in this case
is that the nature of the deceased’s employment merely aggravated his
pre-existing illness.  x x x” (Rollo, p. 3; Underlining
supplied)

The rulings in Corales
v. Employees Compensation Commission (88 SCRA 547) and Javier v. Employees Compensation Commission, et al., (G.R. No. L-61349, July 25, 1983) apply to the facts
of this case.  We stated in Corales:

“Furthermore, the provisions of the New Labor Code on
Employees Compensation-Book IV, Title II – apply only to injury, sickness,
disability or death accruing on or after January 1, 1975 (Art. 208).  More precise is Section 1 (c) of Rule III of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, which declares that only injury or
sickness that accrued on or after January 1, 1975 and the resulting disability
or death shall be compensable
under the Rules.  There is therefore
no doubt that what governs petitioner’s claim is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“Article 292 of the New Labor Code, which requires that workmen’s
compensation claims accruing prior to the New Labor Code shall be filed with the
appropriate regional offices of the Department of Labor not later than March 31, 1975, otherwise, they shall
forever be barred, does not apply
to petitioner, who filed his
claim on August 4, 1975 with the GSIS; because WE have repeatedly held that the
prescriptive period for claims which accrued under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended, is ten (10) years, it being a right founded on statute. 
Petitioner’s right accrued
as early as September 1965 and hence is a vested right.

xxx               xxx
                  xxx

“Petitioner’s claim having accrued prior to the New Labor
Code, the presumption of compensability,
the principle of aggravation, the award of attorney’s fees and the payments of
administrative fees must be
observed and applied.  And the Employees
Compensation Commission is duty bound to ob­serve and apply the foregoing
principles in passing upon workmen’s compensation.  x x x“

The records of this case show that the late Demetrio
Santarin had been suffering from asthma for around
twenty (20) years prior to his death on November 3, 1975.  When he started working for the then Office
of the Auditor-General sometime in 1962, he was already afflicted with
asthma.  There is, therefore, no question
that the cause of action accrued long before January 1, 1975.  Under the Corales and Javier precedents above and Villones
v. Employees Compensation Commission (116 SCRA 102), the
former Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to such cases.  Under the rule on aggravation of the former
law, the death from “status asthmaticus” is
thus compensable.  (Belmonte v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 98 SCRA 138;
Enriquez Sr. v. Republic, 93 SCRA 836; Corales v. ECC, 112 SCRA 50).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.  The Government Service
Insurance System is ordered to pay the petitioner:

1)     
The sum of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS as
death compensation;

2)      The
sum of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS for burial expenses; and

3)      To pay the sum of SIX HUNDRED (P600.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concur.