PROSPERO NAVAL, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for
review, petitioner seeks the reversal and annulment of the decision of the
Employees’ Compensation Commission (Commission for brevity), dated 10 May 1988,^[1] denying permanent total disability benefits
to petitioner.

The facts , as culled from the decision of the respondent
Commission, are as follows:

Petitioner, Prospero
Naval, started his government service on 1 July 1950 when he was appointed
Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Camarines Sur. Five (5) years later, he transferred to the
ACCFA, Naga City, where he held the position of Audit Examiner until 5
February 1962 when he transferred to the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP), Naga Branch, where he started as a clerk-typist. He served the DBP for nineteen (19) years,
earning for himself several promotions, from bookkeeper to Financial Planning
Supervisor, Accountant and finally as Chief of the Planning Staff. He was holding the last mentioned position
at the time of his retirement on 31 December 1985.

His medical records show that as early as 1977, Pros­pero Naval
was already suffering from bronchiectasis, emphysema and hypertension. On 24 June 1985, he was hospitalized in the
Mother Seton Hospital upon a complaint of “on and off” difficulty of
breathing, easy fatigue and cough associated with weight loss, under the
management of a certain Dr. Ruben Chavez. His condition did not improve compelling him to retire at the early age
of fifty-five (55).

On account of his disability, Naval filed a claim for
compensation benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Acting on the claim the GSIS awarded the
petitioner permanent partial disability benefits for eight (8) months starting
on 1 January 1986 on account of his essential hypertension. Petitioner’s other ailments, bronchiectasis
and emphysema, were not considered work-connected, hence, were held not
compensable. Petitioner requested for a
reconsideration of the System’s decision awarding only permanent partial
disability benefits. He insisted in his
claim that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering
that he was evaluated to be under permanent and total disability for the
purpose of retirement by the GSIS itself. The request for reconsideration was not given due course by the GSIS,
hence, petitioner appealed to the respondent Commission. His appeal before the Commission was
dismissed; hence, the present petition for review.

In resolving the appeal, respondent Commission, considered only
essential hypertension suffered by petitioner as work- connected. It held that the other ailments namely
bronchiectasis and emphysema, were not the result of petitioner’s employment
but were largely attributable to cigarette-smoking by petitioner as medically
determined by the GSIS. Referring to
petitioner’s medical records, respondent Commission declared that his permanent
total disability may have been brought about by these two (2) non-work related
illnesses, for which reason he is not entitled to the claimed benefits. According to respondent Commission, Article
166 of PD 442 provides for compensation only for work-connected disability or
death. In the present case, the
Commission held that petitioner was properly compensated for his work-related
ailment, namely, essential hypertension.

Petitioner submits that even if bronchiectasis and emphysema were
not considered work-connected, yet he
was found to be suffering from Essential Hypertension by the GSIS itself when
it acted favorably on his disability claim on 4 June 1986. Hence, he maintains that he is entitled to a
lifetime of monthly income benefits as provided in Article 192 of the Labor
Code.^[2]
A year after June 1986, he said he was again examined and found by a
cardiologist of the Philippine Heart Center for Asia, Dr. Esperanza Icasas
Cabral, to be suffering from bronchiectasis, emphysema and hypertension. The same doctor certified that his
disability is considered permanent and total.^[3]

On the other hand, the Solicitor General counters that petitioner
was awarded, on account of his essential hypertension, partial disability
benefits for eight (8) months starting on 1 January 1986, which is considered
the maximum benefit allowed under P.D. 626 for said disease, and that the
denial of his claim for permanent
total disability benefits was based on the finding of the Chief Medical
Examiner of the GSIS that bronchiectasis and emphysema were causes of his
permanent total disability. These
ailments, the Solicitor General points out, were found by both the GSIS and the
Commission to be due to petitioner’s chronic cigarette-smoking and were not
work-connected.

Both the GSIS and the Commission maintain that petitioner failed
to present evidence to prove that it was hypertension, and not the
non-work-related illnesses of bronchiectasis and emphysema, which caused his permanent
total disability. Since under the Labor
Code, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that it was his newly-acquired
hypertension, and not his more advanced but non-work-related illnesses of
bronchiectasis and emphysema, which caused his permanent total disability,
petitioner’s failure to overcome said burden of proof calls for a dismissal of
this petition.

The main issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not
respondent Commission erred in affirming the decision of the GSIS which denied
total permanent disability benefits to petitioner.

In denying petitioner total permanent disability benefits,
respondent Commission relied on the finding that petitioner’s bronchiectasis
and emphysema were not work-related but the result of chronic cigarette-smoking
as deter­mined by the Chief Medical Examiner of the GSIS. Since said ailments were not work-related,
the Commission denied compensation for permanent total disability, pursuant to
Article 166 of PD 442 (Labor Code), as amended.^[4]
However, the Commission concurred with the GSIS that essential hypertension, of
which petitioner was also suffering, was compensable. He was thus granted permanent partial disability benefits for
eight (8) months starting 1 January 1985, which benefits petitioner actually
received.

The new Labor Code has abolished the presumption of
compensability for illnesses contracted by a worker during employment.^[5]
Indeed, to be entitled to disability benefits, petitioner had to present
evidence to prove that his ailments, bronchiectasis, emphysema and
hypertension, were the results of, or the risk of contracting the same were
aggravated by, working conditions or the nature of his work. Unfortunately, except for a sweeping
statement that his “long years of service in the government exposed him to
dust and the elements and to viruses, mycoplasmas and bacteria,”
petitioner failed to prove that bronchiectasis and emphysema were
work-related. Besides, these two (2)
ailments, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, are not listed as
occupational diseases in the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation.

Sensing that his argument to justify compensability for his lung
ailments was unconvincing, it is then urged by petitioner that the said lung
ailments were not really the causes of his permanent total disability but
hypertension.^[6]
He alleges that after his medical treatment of these two (2) ailments,
bronchiectasis and emphysema, he was still able to work efficiently for six (6)
years and earned two (2) promotions, namely, Chief, Planning Staff (1983) and
Chief, Collection and Acquired Assets Division which position he was holding
when he was forced to retire on 31 December 1985. According to petitioner, the duties and functions of these last
two (2) positions held by him were the causes of his hypertension which
rendered him perma­nently and totally disabled.

The records do not support the aforesaid argument of
petitioner. It is apparent from the
evidence he presented, i.e., the medical certificate of Dr. Esperanza
Icasas-Cabral and the Action on Disability Claim, that his lung ailments were
always mentioned together with essential hypertension. In fact, as observed by public respondent,
petitioner’s lung diseases are mentioned or listed first, thereby indicating
that the said lung diseases are the primary causes of petitioner’s claimed
permanent and total disability. As for
essential hypertension –

“The term essential hypertension has been employed to indicate
those cases of hypertension for which a specific endocrine or renal basis
cannot be found, and in which the neural element may be only a mediator of other influences. Since even this latter relationship is not entirely clear, it is
more properly listed for the moment in the category of unknown etiology. The term essential hypertension defines
simply by failing to define; hence it is of limited use except as an expression
of our inability to understand adequately the forces at work.”^[7]

Simply put, the term essential hypertension is commonly used to
describe a rise in the blood pressure of an individual when no specific factor
is attributed to its development.

We do not believe that essential hypertension alone caused
petitioner’s total and permanent disability. As abovestated, bronchiectasis and emphysema were found by the GSIS
Medical Director to have been caused by petitioner’s chronic
cigarette-smoking. These ailments,
together with essential hypertension, contributed to his weakened bodily
condition. Petitioner himself admits
that after he was treated of these two (2) ailments, i.e. bronchiectasis and
emphysema his health did not improve and was, in fact, aggravated by the
development of essential hypertension as the years passed.^[8] The
nature and condition of his work cannot be said to have caused or contributed
to his hyper­tension. The positions he
held prior to his retirement did not entail stressful activitiy. They were “desk jobs.” As a
division chief, he was not exposed to the elements or exerted physical strain
such as driving a taxicab (Abana vs. Quisumbing, 22 SCRA 1278); or like a school
teacher whose strenuous work of teaching school children of tender age or
assignment to barrios for community work therein contributed to or aggravated
his ailments (De Castro vs. Republic, 75 SCRA 372). While ample jurisprudence has indeed established that where an
illness or disease intervened or was contracted by the employee in the course
of his employment, said employee is entitled to disability compensation, yet,
said decisions were promulgated under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act
where the presumption of compensability was the rule. Under the Labor Code, petitioner has the burden of proving that
his illness is work-related and hence compensable. We agree with the counsel for respondent GSIS that no evidence
was adduced by petitioner to show that he would still be permanently and
totally disabled even in the absence of his non-work connected lung ailments of
emphysema and bronchiectasis.

The respondent Employees’
Compensation Commission, therefore, did not err in affirming the
decision of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Employees’
Compensation Commission denying petitioner’s claim for permanent total
disability benefits, is AFFIRMED. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 20-22

^[2]
Annex ‘B’, Action on Disability Claim, Rollo, p. 23

^[3]
Annex ‘C’, Medical Certificate, ibid., p. 24

^[4]
Art. 166. Policy. – The State shall promote and develop a tax-exempt employees’
compensation program whereby employees and their dependents, in the event of
work-connected disability or death, may promptly
secure adequate income benefit, and medical or related benefits.

^[5]
Sulit vs. ECC, 98 SCRA 483

^[6]
Reply, p. 2

^[7]
Harrison, Principles of Internal Medicine. 5th Ed., p. 706

^[8]
Reply, p. 2; Rollo, p. 53