BENIGNO C. GASCON, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION; GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the
decision of respondent Employees’ Compensation Commission (hereinafter
referred to as Commission) in ECC Case No. 1286 affirming the decision
of respondent Government Service Insurance System (hereinafter referred
to as GSIS) to deny disability benefits under Presidential Decree No.
626 as amended to claimant Benigno C. Gascon.

The antecedent facts are not disputed. As correctly summarized by respondent Commission they are:

“After twenty six years of service in the Bureau of Customs,
Benigno Gascon, appellant herein, contracted two ailments, namely,
diabetes mellitus and pulmonary tuberculosis, prompting him to retire at
the age of 64. Per certification of Mr. Dominador Nigoza, Personnel
Officer III of the Bureau of Customs, appellant started in June 1953 as
clerk, thereafter liquidator, later examiner and finally customs
examiner I, his last position. Due to the above-named ailments,
appellant had been incurring absences from his work on various dates and
occasions and as disclosed by Mr. Adan I. Rosete, his immediate
superior, appellant was on sick leave of absence from December 2, 1974
up to March 31, 1975. He retired on April 1, 1975.

“Attributing his ailments to the nature and conditions of his
employment as a customs examiner, appellant on February 9, 1976 filed
with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) a claim for
disability benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. The
respondent System disallowed the claim on the ground that appellant’s
ailments had been contracted prior to the advent of the new Employees’
Compensation Program and could not, therefore, be given due course for
lack of legal basis. x x x”

The respondent Commission denied the petitioner’s claim for disability
benefits on two grounds: 1) the claim was filed after March 31, 1975
the last day for filing claims which accrued prior to the effectivity of
the New Labor Code pursuant to Article 292 thereof and 2) the
Commission has no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim.

We are constrained to reverse the Commission’s decision.

The rulings in Corales v. Employees Compensation Commission (88 SCRA 547); Javier v. Employees Compensation Commission, et al. (123 SCRA 735); Santarin v. Employees Compensation Commission
(124 SCRA 548) establish the rule to be followed on claims falling
under the Workmen’s Com­pensation Act but filed after March 31, 1975.

The rule in the Corales and Javier decisions summarized in the Santarin decision reads:

“‘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.”

The petitioner proved that he had far advanced and active pulmonary
tuberculosis in 1974 when the New Labor Code was not yet operative.
Therefore, the disease commenced earlier than 1974 and is presumed to
have resulted from the nature of his job as a customs examiner with the
Bureau of Customs under the applicable law at that time. Consequently,
the claim continues to be governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Under the abovecited precedents, the petitioner’s claim is not covered
by the March 31, 1975 deadline for filing claims pursuant to Article 292
of the New Labor Code. When, therefore, the petitioner filed his claim
for disability benefits with the GSIS on February 9, 1976, the
prescriptive period of ten (10) years had not yet lapsed.

Moreover, the respondent Commission’s conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim because the same is governed by
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, is erroneous. As successor
of the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission, the respondent
Commis­sion has the jurisdiction to pass upon claims governed by the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended and is duty bound to apply its
underlying principles. Thus,

“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 payment of administrative fees must be
observed and applied. And the Employees’ Compensation Commission as the
successor of the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission is
duty-bound to observe and apply the foregoing principles in passing upon
workmen’s compensation x x x.” (Corales v. ECC, et al., 88 SCRA 547; La
O v. ECC, et al., 97 SCRA 780; Panangui, et al., v. ECC, et al., 121
SCRA 65; Makabali v. ECC, et al., G. R. No. 51533 (November 29, 1983).

The respondent Commission admits the linkage between the petitioner’s illness and his employment. It ruled:

“While we sympathize with the appellant considering that his
ailments were contracted during his stint in the government service, our
sympathy cannot justify an award under PD No. 626, as amended, because
the cause of action in the instant case clearly falls under the old
Workmen’s Compensation Act 348, as amended, and, therefore, outside of
the jurisdiction of this Commission.”

The petitioner submitted the following in support of ‘his claim before the respondent GSIS:

“2. That my occupation as a Customs Examiner in Manila
International Airport, (MIA), involves the increased risk of contracting
PTB, considering that among my duties are the following, to wit:

“A) EXAMINATION OF PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES -involves
constant direct contact with various people of different health
condi­tions; (some passengers sick with flu and some carriers of
Tuberculosis germs, whose baggages are likewise contaminated with ‘the
disease they are suffering from);

“B) EXAMINATION OF MANIFESTED CARGOES AND UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGES IN THE WAREHOUSE/ BODEGA
– The warehouse in the MIA has no ventilation and/or is poorly
ventilated, aggravated by overcrowding of baggages and people/claimants
of different health condi­tions, some suffering from PTB; Some baggages
belonging to sick persons are contaminated; Some baggages, after being
unclaimed for sometime, has accumulated dust and other toxic substances;

“C) MAKING INVENTORY OF OVERSTAYING AND UNCLAIMED CARGOES AND BAGGAGES
– The examination is done at the extreme end of the poorly ventilated
warehouse; The area is hot and polluted with mixtures of accumulated
dust, diesel, and smokes from forklifts and foul odor from excrement of
animals and fighting cocks imported; The temperature therein induces
profuse perspiration;

“D) ABRUPT CHANGE OF TEMPERATURE FROM WAREHOUSE TO EXAMINATION ARRIVAL AREA
– From the warehouse which is hot, the examiner has to rush to the
passenger arrival area which is airconditioned and cool especially if
the plane arrives ahead of schedule; This abrupt change of tempera­ture
causes ones resistance to weaken and exposes one to the increased risk
of contracting PTB;

“E) EXAMINATION DUTIES BEFORE AND AFTER MIDNIGHT DAWN, AND
MORNING, AND ON DELAYED FLIGHTS DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS, CAUSING LOSS
OF SLEEP – The examiner could not sleep the whole night if he is
the assigned. Examiner to such delayed flight arrivals; He has to
report for regular duty on the morning; This loss of sleep is a
contributor y factor to the weakening of ones resistance, thereby
rendering the employee susceptible to pulmonary tuberculosis;

“F) INCIDENT CAUSING SICKNESS DISABILITY; PROXIMATE CAUSE –
Sometime on November, 1974, claimant Benigno Gascon from his official
duty at MIA; was stranded on his way home, because of the deep flood and
storm; Being weary from work and exposed to wetness, he contracted flu,
and despite prudent medical care, was aggravated at the hospital and
later his disability retirement;”

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

The ruling in Pantranco v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission (8 SCRA 352) applies:

“A stronger reason to sustain the compensability of the present
claim is that the company failed to rebut the presumption in favor of
the working man, as held ‘in the case of Naira v. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, et al., L-18066, 30 October 1962, when this Court
pronounced:

“‘x x x, in the absence of proof that the injury or death
supervening in the course of employment has arisen because of the nature
of the same, the death or injury is, by law, compensable, unless the
employer clearly establishes that it was not caused or aggravated by such employment or work. Mere absence of evidence that the mishap was traceable to the employment does not suffice to reject the claim; there must be credible showing that it was not so traceable x x x.'”

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission is SET ASIDE and the Bureau of Customs is hereby ordered:

1. To pay petitioner the sum of Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as disability compensation benefits;

2. To reimburse petitioner his medical and hospital expenses which are duly supported by proper receipts; and

3. To pay attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the amount of the award.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.