ANGELO L. LOYOLA, PETITIONER, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

The center of controversy in this case is whether or not the
illness of the petitioner, i.e., cataract with glaucoma, is
compensable.

Petitioner is the Carmona, Cavite District Supervisor of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. He entered the government service in 1962 as a classroom teacher. He rose through the ranks until he became
the District Supervisor in 1974, the position he is holding up to the present.

In 1987, he contracted an eye ailment. It started as progressive blurring of vision with slight
discomfort of the left eye. This
prompted him to consult an eye doctor. His physician observed that he had a cataract with glaucoma in the left
eye. He underwent cataract extraction
on July 2,1987 and he was discharged after four (4) days of confinement in the
hospital.

He then filed a claim for compensation benefits in the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) on
account of his ailment. He was one month permanent partial disability
benefit for cholecystectomy under Presidential Decree No. 1146. However, his claim for compensation benefits
under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, was disapproved as his ailment
is non-work-connected, it being a degenerative condition leading to opacity of
the lens.

A motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the
GSIS. Hence, petitioner filed a
petition for review with the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), wherein
in due course a decision was rendered on May 24, 1989 affirming the appealed
decision and dismissing the appeal.

Thus, the herein petition wherein it is alleged that the ECC
committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering the said decision.

A compensable sickness means “any illness definitely accepted as
an occupational disease listed by the ECC or any illness caused by employment
subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is
increased by working conditions. For
this purpose, the ECC is empowered to determine and approve occupational
diseases and work-related illnesses that may be based on peculiar hazards of
employment.”^[1]

In order that a sickness of an employee may be occupational, it
must be the result of an accepted occupational disease listed by the ECC^[2]
or any other sickness caused by employment subject to proof by the claimant
that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.^[3]

The ECC in denying the claim for compensation of petitioner held
as follows:

“A study by our Medical Division,
showed that Glaucoma, is a disease of the eye characterized by increased
intra-ocular tension and commonly causing impairment of vision ranging from
slight abnormalities to absolute blindness. The initial causes are not known. Advanced age, arteriosclerotic vasomotor instability, hyperopia and
heredity are among the predisposing factors. (Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, p. 433.)

While senile cataract is an opacity of the lens resulting from
degenerative changes occurring concomitant with aging, (N.W. Ophthalmology,
Principles and Concepts, 2nd Edition, 1969, p. 300).

Based on the foregoing medical discussion, we agree with the decision of the
respondent System that there is no proof to show that there is causal
relationship between the above ailments and the appellant’s occupation as a
teacher of the DECS. Neither was there
an increased risk in the working conditions. For cataract to be compensable, it should be a cataract produced by
frequent exposure to glare as rays from molten glass or red hot glass blowers. The cataract and glaucoma in the instant
case is associated with the aging process.”^[4]

There is no question that cataract with glaucoma is not listed by
the ECC as an occupational disease. Thus, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show that there is a
causal relationship between his ailment and his occupation as a teacher and
thereafter District Supervisor. There
should be proof of increased risk
in petitioner’s working conditions. This is as it should be because for an illness to be compensable, it
must be (1) directly caused by such employment; (2) aggravated by the
employment; or (3) the result of the nature of such employment.^[5]

In the case of Zozobrado vs. ECC,^[6] this Court held as follows:

“The        doctrine of
presumptive compensability in the old Workmen’s Compensation Law that when an
illness supervenes during the course of employment it is deemed to have either
arisen out of or been aggravated by petitioner’s employment has been
abandoned. Under Presidential Decree
No. 626, as amended, the present law on compensation, the listed occupational
diseases are compensable when the conditions contained therein are met, and
certain diseases are allowed to compensable whenever the claimant can prove
that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the conditions of the
employment of the deceased. As to the
degree of proof required, 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.

Petitioner’s eye ailment is ‘cataract, senile OS’ of the left eye. A cataract is any opacity in the crystalline
lens. Senile cataract is by far the
most common type, usually associated with factors related to aging. Senile cataract as defined, is the most
common form of cataract occurring after the age of fifty (50) due to aging or
degenerative changes (Adler’s Text Book of Ophthalmology by Schele and Albert,
8th Edition, 1968, pp. 281-282). It is
a risk or hazard to which all persons are exposed regardless of whether they are
employed or not, the same (Senile Cataract) being attributed to degenerative
changes or to aging process.”

In Jarillo vs. ECC,^[7] this
Court held that “senile cataract though not listed as an occupational disease
is compensable where it is established that petitioner’s duties as construction
worker expose him to the heat of the sun.”

In Cerezo vs.
ECC,^[8] this Court held that the social and
humane character of the law leans toward compassion and compensability. Advancing age, as in this case, may have
caused or contributed to the development of the ailment but is not a drawback
for what is material and decisive is that the employment contributed even in a
small degree in aggravating the ailment.”

In support of his claim, petitioner submitted his attending
physician’s certificate attesting to the fact that the mature cataract with
glaucoma of the left eye of petitioner was due to his extreme exposure to
environmental climatic condition such as direct heat of the sun, dust, rain,
and unfavorable weather condition connected with his work.^[9]

Petitioner also presented the statement of his duties as public
school district supervisor and certificate both signed by the Provincial
Schools Superintendent^[10]
attesting to the fact that because of the duties of the petitioner as District
Supervisor, which include attendance at athletic meets, as athletic meet
official from unit, division and regional levels and of many occasions of the Palarong Pambansa as he was then Division Athletic Manager and
officer-in-charge of Physical Education and Sports Development, and that in
addition to his usual assignment of officiating at different events in sports,
he also supervised and managed the training of division athletes to the Dual
Athletic Meet with the Division of Cavite City; and that by the nature of his
work he suffered too much exposure to environmental climatic conditions
particularly direct heat of the sun, strong winds, dirty dust, rains and
unfavorable weather conditions.

From the foregoing, it is clear that while the ailment of
petitioner of cataract with glaucoma may be attributed to his aging, his
exposure to the environment because of his work under the direct heat of the
sun, strong winds, dirty dust, rains and unfavorable conditions must have
contributed to if not aggravated his illness. Hence, petitioner is entitled to compensation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed
decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission dated May 24, 1989 is
reversed and set aside and another judgment is hereby rendered granting the compensation
benefits to the petitioner as claimed in the amount of P18,193.55 plus
P3,000.00 attorney’s fees. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Bonifacio vs. GSIS, 146 SCRA 276 (1986).

^[2]
Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employment Compensation.

^[3]
Section 1, Rule II, Amended Rules on Employment Compensation.

^[4]
Page 17, Rollo.

^[5]
Bonifacio vs. GSIS, supra.

^[6]
141 SCRA 136 (1986).

^[7]
112 SCRA 268 (1982).

^[8]
93 SCRA 680 (1979); see also Natividad vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, 85 SCRA 115 (1978).

^[9]
Annex G to the Petition; page 22, Rollo.

^[10]
Annexes E and F to the Petition; pages 19-21, Rollo.