MARTINIANO SARMIENTO, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

Sarmiento versus Employees' Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari filed by Martiniano Sarmiento against the Employees' Compensation Commission and the Government Service Insurance System. Sarmiento, a former casual laborer of the Bureau of Agricultural Extension, sought disability compensation benefits under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, for his ailments diagnosed as acute follicular pharyngitis with hypertrophic rhinitis. Both the Government Service Insurance System and the Employees' Compensation Commission denied his claim on the ground that his illnesses were neither occupational nor work-connected. The case matters because it illustrates how the Supreme Court applies the "increased risk" theory and the liberal, compassionate spirit of the labor code in workmen's compensation claims, requiring only substantial evidence and reasonable work-connection rather than direct causal relation.

Procedural History

Sarmiento filed his claim for disability compensation with the Government Service Insurance System on March 14, 1983. On April 6, 1983, the Manager of the Disability Benefits Department of the Government Service Insurance System denied the claim, stating that the petitioner's ailments are not occupational. From this denial, Sarmiento filed a petition for review before the Employees' Compensation Commission. On March 18, 1984, the Commission's medical officer, Dr. Francisco A. Estacio, found no proof to establish the compensability of the disease in relation to the claimant's occupation, and recommended affirmance of the denial. On July 20, 1984, the Employees' Compensation Commission rendered its decision affirming the decision appealed from and dismissing the case. Sarmiento then filed this appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Commission's decision.

Facts

Martiniano Sarmiento was a casual laborer of the Bureau of Agricultural Extension from January 5, 1976 until his retirement on June 30, 1980. His work required him to deal with different kinds of plants which had to be sprayed with insecticides and pesticides.

In February 1983, according to medical records, his illness started as a fever accompanied by chest pain, cough, and watery nasal discharge. He was treated at the Provincial Hospital of Bohol by Dr. Segundo T. Rocha, a private physician, who recorded that the present condition started three days prior to consultation as sudden onset of cough accompanied by chest pain and feverish sensation, with cough hard in character and more in the early evening and morning, and that the patient had been with nasal stuffiness for almost fifteen years as on and off nasal stuffiness associated with frontal headache. His illness was diagnosed as acute follicular pharyngitis with hypertrophic rhinitis.

On March 14, 1983, Sarmiento filed his claim for disability compensation with the Government Service Insurance System under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended. The System denied the claim, and the Employees' Compensation Commission affirmed the denial, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner's ailments, acute follicular pharyngitis with hypertrophic rhinitis, are compensable under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended.
• Whether or not the petitioner has established by substantial evidence a reasonable work-connection, or increased risk, between his working conditions and his illnesses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 626, amending Article 165 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, defines compensable sickness as follows:

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 the working conditions.

This provision bears on the case because it sets the two modes of compensability — a listed occupational disease, or an illness caused by employment where the employee proves increased risk from working conditions — and the petitioner's ailments are not listed, so he must rely on the increased risk theory.

Article 4 of the New Labor Code provides:

All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.

This provision bears on the case because the Court invokes it to give meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law in resolving compensation claims.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's ailments are compensable. Neither follicular pharyngitis nor chronic hypertrophic rhinitis has been listed by the Commission as an occupational disease, so the petitioner posited his claim under the increased risk theory. The Court ruled that to establish compensability under this theory, the claimant must show proof of work-connection, and that the degree of proof required under Presidential Decree Number 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The claimant must show, at least by substantial evidence, that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable; probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.

On the second issue, the Court found reasonable proof of work-connection, if not direct causal relation, between the petitioner's employment and his illnesses. The very nature of his ailments as respiratory diseases, vis-a-vis his occupation where as laborer he was constantly exposed to plant dusts and chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers, clearly respiratory irritants, substantiates his claim of work-connection and increased risk. This is not the case of an employee subjected to general pollution suffered in common with workers and non-workers alike; Sarmiento worked directly and regularly with pesticides and toxic materials as part of his employment. The Court noted that inhalants like insect sprays, occupational dusts and odors, fumes and smokes will increase the severity or provoke episodes of rhinitis. The use of the term chronic, meaning long-term or long-standing, further confirms work-connection, implying a long and gradual development of the ailment. The Court concluded that not only is there reasonable work-connection shown but direct causal relation of the petitioner's employment and his illness of hypertrophic rhinitis, for which compensation must be given. A general weakening of a person's constitution and body resistance is likewise a necessary consequence of his working conditions, and coupled with chronic hypertrophic rhinitis, his susceptibility to infection was increased, causing him to further contract follicular pharyngitis.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain the following rules. First, under Presidential Decree Number 626, as amended, a compensable sickness is 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 the working conditions. Second, where the illness is not listed, the claimant may recover under the increased risk theory, but must show proof of work-connection. Third, the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Fourth, what the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation; it is enough that the hypothesis on which the claim is based is probable, for probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. Fifth, medical opinion to the contrary may be disregarded where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Sixth, all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor, in consonance with the State's policy to give maximum aid and protection to labor.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission was set aside, and the respondents were ordered to compute the full extent of the petitioner's disability and, on that basis, immediately pay him the benefits due.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that what the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation, and probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. Examiners like to use this case to test the increased risk theory, the substantial evidence standard in compensation claims, and the liberal construction of labor laws in favor of the worker.