JESUS CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (BUREAU OF POSTS), RESPONDENTS.

This is a Petition to Review by Certiorari the decision of
the Employees’ Compensation Commission af­firming the findings of the
Government Service Insurance System that petitioner’s ailments are not
work-connected and hence not compensable as required by law.

The undisputed facts of the case are briefly summarized by
respondent Government Service Insurance Sys­tem in its Comment as follows:

“Petitioner was born on February 22, 1920 in Baleno, Masbate. 
Effective January 1, 1981, after 24.36347 years of creditable government
service and at the age of 60 years, 10 months and 8 days, he retired as
Postmaster I, Bureau of Posts, Region V, with station at Baleno,
Masbate.  His
service in the govern­ment, which started on July 5, 1949 as a public school teacher and later on as a
municipal councilor, was interrupted twice as reflected in his service record,
first from July 1, 1952 up
to December 31, 1955 and
second, from June 16, 1956
up to January 31, 1960.

“On December 4, 1980,
petitioner Chavez applied for retirement benefits under the provisions of PD
No. 1146.  He has already received a
gross 5-year lump sum annuity of P24,598.80 and will
receive a monthly pension of P409.98 starting in 1986.

“Petitioner Chavez alleges that he first complained of frequent
urination and irregular bowel movement sometime in
October 1972.  In 1974, he underwent
surgery for removal of renal stones.  In
1976, he experienced hypochandriac pains because of
kidney stones.  And, in July 1982, or one
year and a half (1 1/2) after his retirement, he submitted himself to surgery
for removal of a right urethral stone.

“Thereafter, on January 4,
1982, he filed the present claim. 
On February 10, 1982,
the GSIS denied it on the ground that petitio­ner’s ailments are not
work-connected, as required by law.  The
GSIS also evaluated petitioner’s claim under the provisions of PD No. 1146 for
possible non-work connected benefits, particularly the sickness
income benefit, but the same could not be granted because he was enjoying sick
leave with pay at the time (Sec. 20, P.d. No. 1146).  The GSIS
reiterated its decision on May 3, 1982. 
Later, on September 2, 1982, respondent ECC affirmed the action by the
GSIS (ECC Case No. 1985).” (pp. 74-75, Rollo)

Hence, this Petition for
Review, claimant assigning several errors which can be narrowed down into the
determinative issue of whether petitioner’s compensation claim for ailments
contracted by him prior to the effect­ivity of the
New Labor Code on November 1, 1974 but filed after said date should be adjudicated under the old
Workmen’s Compensation Law
(Act No. 3428 as amended) or under the New Labor Code.  We rule that the Labor Code as amended applies, for what is
important is when compensation is sought. 
Petitioner’s assignments of errors are listed down as follows:

I

THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE AILMENTS OF PETITIONER ARE NOT OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASES AS CONTEMPLATED BY LAW

II

THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DIS­CRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE AILMENTS OF THE PETITIONER ARE NOT
WORK-CONNECTED ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM OF STRENUOUS WORKING
CONDITIONS AND EXPOSURE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE CONTRACTION OF HIS AILMENTS

III

THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DIS­CRETION IN NOT HOLDING AND FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER’S RISK OF
CONTRACTING HIS AILMENTS HAD BEEN INCREASED BY HIS WORK OR BY HIS WORK­ING
CONDITIONS TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN SO CONS­TANTLY EXPOSED AS SUCH POSTMASTER OF
THE BALENO POST OFFICE IN MASBATE

IV

THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DIS­CRETION IN NOT APPLYING THE LAW LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF COMPENSABILITY
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE RIGORS AND STRESSES OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOY­MENT HAVE
CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY IF NOT FURTHER INCREASED THE RISK OF CONTRACTING THE
AFORESAID AILMENTS

V

THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DIS­CRETION IN DENYING COMPENSABILITY TO THE PETI­TIONER DESPITE THE CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE INTENT AND POLICY OF THE LAW TO AFFORD PROTEC­TION TO LABOR

The petition is patently
meritorious and must be granted.

Petitioner is found to
have chronic pyelonephritis, ureterolithiasis
and ascariasis, which were defined by respondents as
follows:

“Chronic pyelonephritis
is a slowly progressive infection of a renal pelvis and prenchyma,
frequently bilateral.  Factors such as
stones, strictures and tumors cause obstruction to the flow of urine and predispose
to infection.

“Ureterolithiasis
is the presence of stone in the ureter.  This stone originates from the kidney and are
carried down to the ureter by urine flow.

“Ascariasis
is infestation with ascaris lumbricoides.  Its vehicles for transmission are the fecally contaminated food and drinks.  Portal of entry is through the oral route.”
(Letter-denial-decision, dated February 10, 1982, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, underscoring supplied for emphasis, p. 33, Rollo)

It is petitioner’s
contention that his ailments are compensable under the provisions of the New
Labor Code.  Under Art.
1167 paragraph 1 of P.D. 626 as amended a compensable sickness is defined as
(1) any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the
Commission or (2) any illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the
risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.  Since petitioner’s ailments are not listed as
occupational diseases, petitioner must perforce present proofs and evidence
that these ailments were work-related and that the risk of contracting the same
was aggravated by the working conditions of his employment as postmaster and/or
mail carrier.

There is no question that
petitioner was presumably in good health when he started working as
postmaster.  To substantiate his claim,
herein petitioner recalls the stress and rigors he allegedly encountered as a
mail carrier wherein he had to
walk the whole day to deliver all kinds of mail matters under inclement weather
or intense heat; that in order to carry out said duties effectively, he had to
sail on an open motor boat which passes through shallow coastal barrios and
flooded rivers or rivulets and then had to walk to several adjacent in-land
barrios which resulted often in his acquiring bodily ailments.  In September of 1961, upon his assignment as
a postmaster in Baleno, Masbate, he had to perform the additional task of
cleaning the said post office, because that was a one-man post office.  So for some nineteen (19) years, he held the
unenviable job of a postmaster, letter-carrier and janitor all at the same
time.  He had to negotiate a distance of
40 miles while sailing on an open boat, which fact often hampered relief of his
personal necessities.  Petitioner further
narrates the following facts:

“14.  Thus, in 1972,
while petitioner was already undergoing treatment for a kidney ailment,
diagnosed medically as ‘pyelonephritis and Uretorolithiasis‘ he was unmindful of the ill-effects of
his work to his ailment, such that he went on performing the very same
functions he had done for the last twelve (12) or so years then, with the same
zeal and enthu­siasm.  He was in fact,
admitted at the UST Hospital
in October 1972 on complaint of fre­quent urination and irregular bowel
movement.  (Decision of respondent ECC,
on page 1, paragraph 2, Annex
“C” hereof) Despite that however, upon his discharge from the UST Hospital, he continued on with his usual duties,
sailing on in an open motor boat and walking great distances thus encountering
the very same elements of nature.  He had
remitted postal funds during his tenure of office as he did in the years 1973
and 1974 and until 1980.  As a matter of
fact, in 1974, he underwent surgery for the removal of renal stones at the Masbate Provincial Hospital. 
Thus, during his confinement and recuperation, he was unable to perform
his duties.  But immediately after his
discharge from the said hospital, he re­sumed performing his regular duties
until in 1976 he developed intermittent right hypochrondriac
pain and during the ensuing examina­tion at the Nicanor Reyes Memorial Hospital the presence of stones in his right kidney
was discovered.  (Pls. see Decision,
supra on page 1) But, he went on with his regular duties and in order not to
prejudice his duties and responsibilities he merely took ‘Uretricin
0-P’ and other drugs which temporarily relieved him of pains enabling him to go
on with his work.

“15.  Because
of his said ailments, herein petitioner frequently went on leave of absence to
be able to submit himself to medication. 
In one of his several visits to the UST
Hospi­tal, his attending physician
had advised him to retire from his employment for the reason that his health
would no longer warrant a prolonged performance of the said work.  He, therefore, wishing to stay alive a little
more eventually was forced to retire effective January 1, 1981 at the early age
of only 61 years after having rendered a continuous and dedicated public
service for twenty (20) years.

“16.  But,
even after his forced retire­ment in January 1981, he submitted himself for
sustained treatment of the aforesaid ailments which he had contracted in the
course of his employment as such postmaster with varied duties.  He finally was operated on for the removal of
a right uretheral stone by cystoscopy
and was discharged therefrom last July 7, 1982.

“17.  Retired
due to a disabling disease and knowing that his ailments had been due to his
employment he contracted during his tenure with the Bureau of Posts as such
post­master at Baleno, Masbate,
he filed the instant complaint for disability compensation benefits under
Presidential Decree 626, as amended, which had been rejected by the respondent
System and which decision had been affirmed by the respondent Commission.

“18.  Thus, the present
petition, to reite­rate, for review on certiorari, of the said adverse
decisions of the respondents including his claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses in the amount of P11,850.80 duly supported by official receipts OR
Nos. 38382, 39815 and 50091, herein marked and attached as Annex “D”
and also made part hereof.

“19.  Petitioner was attended
by Dr. Pasion last June 24, 1981 and by Dr. Lantin on June 27, 1981 of the St. Luke’s Hospital and copy
of the examination – results is hereto marked and attached as Annexes
“E” and “F”, respect­ively and likewise further made
integral part hereof.” (pp. 15–17, Rollo)

This Court takes judicial
notice of the strenuous nature of the work of a letter-carrier.  We cannot disregard the fact that
petitioner’s employment brought him to places not common to the ordinary public
nor to a clerical employee in an air-conditioned office.  Petitioner in the execution of his duties had
to go
to far-flung barrios braving or indifferent to all kinds of weather.  He had to walk or cross flooded places, and
in the course of his travel, he had to partake of food bought or taken from
unsanitary places where he found himself situated, be it in the barrio, the
town or the market sites.  His nature of
work made him thirsty most of the time forcing him or leaving him no choice
except to drink water from sources unknown and uncertain as to its cleanliness.  In remote barrios and villages, the common
source of potable water would be the ordinary artesian well or if there is
none, from the rivers and places which city folks and employees would not even
dare to consider.  In such a situation,
it would not be difficult to
conclude that petitioner
contracted his ailments more particularly ascariasis
since this disease is transmitted from contaminated food and/or water.

Petitioner also invites Our attention to the fact that his ailments could also be
due to slowly progressing infections which take time to attack the human
body.  It is undisputed that petitioner
in the course of his employment had constant exposure to the elements
such as the heat of the sun, sudden rain, wind, floods, and similar conditions.  The discomfort attendant to the inconvenient
relief of personal necessities, the long hours of travel on land and sea – all
these contributed to his ailments, resulting in his incapacity to continue working. 
Undoubtedly, therefore petitioner’s ailments are work-connected,
work-aggravated and hence compensable.

Respondents argue that
petitioner’s action has already
prescribed as it was filed beyond the 3-year prescriptive period provided for
under Art. 292 of the New Labor Code.  A perusal of the record shows that petitioner
filed this case on January 4, 1982 for disability benefits.  Petitioner was afflicted with the disease in
1972 or 1974, yet he continued to go on with his regular work as
postmaster.  In 1976, when he was opera­ted
on for removal of kidney stones, he was just on sick leave with pay. 
Immediately after his discharge from the hospital, he continued to work
as postmaster.  He was thus not disabled
yet to discharge his work.  His
incapacity to work began when his doctors advised him to quit working to be
able to live longer, and this was in January 1981 when he filed his forced
retirement papers at the age of 61 years. 
The determining point of the accrual of the cause of action is the time
the complainant-employee becomes disabled or incapacitated to do his regular
work because that is the time when the benevolent mantle of the Law commences
to cover and protect him.  Thus
when petitioner filed his com­plaint on January 4, 1982, the 3-year prescriptive period had not yet
lapsed.

However, We find merit in respondent GSIS’ conten­tion that under
the “exclusivity of benefit” doctrine provided for under the
provisions of P.D. 626 as amended by P.D. 1641 (New Labor Code) and CA 186 as
amended by P.D. 1146 (GSIS Act), petitioner, since he already availed himself
of his sick leave with pay benefits and retirement benefits, is entitled only
to benefits, the formula for the computation of which shall be that provided
for under CA 186 (as amended by P.D. 1146) plus 20% thereof.  The record shows that petitioner has already
received his gross 5-year lump sum annuity retirement of P24,598.80
and a monthly pension of P409.98
starting 1986.  He is therefore entitled
only to 20% of P24,598.80 as disability
benefits.  Petitioner is likewise
entitled to the reimbursement of his medical and hospital expenses duly
supported by proper receipts, it appearing that his operation in 1982, one year
after his retirement, was for the removal of a right urethral stone.

Noteworthy at this juncture is the contention of respondent GSIS
that if petitioner is found to be entitled to benefits, the employer Bureau of
Posts of peti­tioner should ultimately pay, not the State Insurance Fund which
is administered by the GSIS.  The State
Insu­rance Fund is composed of funds coming from employers’ contributions under
the New Labor Code which took effect on November
1, 1974.  Petitioner retired
in January 1981.  After payment by the GSIS, it can seek
reimbursement from the Bureau of Posts which shall be heard there­on
pursuant to the requirement of due process. 
Additio­nally, it appearing that herein petitioner had availed himself
of the services of a lawyer, petitioner is entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Employees’ Compensation Commission
is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby rendered, ordering the Govern­ment
Service Insurance System (1) to pay petitioner’s disability benefits, (2) to
refund his medical and hos­pital expenses duly supported by proper receipts,
(3) to pay attorney’s fees, and (4) to pay administrative costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr.,
Padilla, Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.