Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 95595 July 8, 1991 JOSE DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,respondents.

MELENCIO- ERRERA, J.:p his Petition for Revie! on Certiorari, under Rule "# of the Rules of Court and $rticle %&% of the 'abor Code (Pres. Decree No. ""), as a*ended+, filed b, petitioner on his o!n behalf, challen-es the Decision of the E*plo,ees. Co*pensation Co**ission (ECC+, !hich affir*ed the findin- of the /overn*ent Service Insurance S,ste* (/SIS+ that petitioner.s ail*ent 0Proliferative Diabetic Retinopath, !ith Vitreous 1e*orrha-e0 is not co*pensable. Petitioner !as first e*plo,ed as store2eeper b, the 3ureau of Internal Revenue on )4 March %5#6. 1e later earned several pro*otions as $ssistant $-ent, $ssistant E7a*iner, Revenue E7a*iner II, and Senior Revenue E7a*iner on 8 Dece*ber %588, until he beca*e, on % $u-ust %5&#, a Supervisin- Revenue Enforce*ent Officer, !hich position he held !hen disabilit, forced hi* to retire at a-e 6% on % 9anuar, %5&&. Petitioner clai*s that so*eti*e in %5&), he e7perienced loss of vision for !hich he consulted an e,e specialist !ho dia-nosed his visual i*pair*ent as 0the result of continuous visual insult in the pursuit for his duties, !herein cataract and vitreous he*orrha-e sets in as co*plication of both e,es0 ($nne7 $, Petition+. 'aser photo:coa-ulation !as prescribed and rendered in %5&4 b, another e,e specialist of the E,e Referral Center !ho found petitioner to be sufferin- fro* 0Proliferative Diabetic Retinopath, !ith Vitreous 1e*orrha-e0 (Petition, pp. 4:"+. On & $u-ust %5&6, he under!ent panretinal photo:coa-ulation at the Southeastern E,e Center of North Carolina, ;.S.$. (ibid.+. On %5 9une %5&8, he filed a clai* for co*pensation benefits under Pres. Decree No. 6)6. On 4 9ul, %5&8, the /SIS denied his clai* on the -round that petitioner.s underl,in- ail*ent, 0diabetes *ellitus,0 is not listed as an occupational disease and that it has not been sho!n that the nature of his !or2 had increased the ris2 of his contractin- his e,e ail*ent. his Decision !as affir*ed b, the ECC on %8 9anuar, %55<, !hich ruled= Our *edical research sho!s that diabetes *ellitus is a disorder of carboh,drate *etabolis* !hich *a, be classified into pri*ar, and secondar, *etabolis* !hich *a, be classified into pri*ar, and secondar, t,pe. /enetic susceptibilit, pla,s a role in the patho-enesis of the pri*ar, t,pe. he secondar, t,pe *a, be due to pancreatic disease, hor*onal abnor*alities, dru-s and che*icals, insulin receptor, abnor*alities, -enetic s,ndro*es and other factors. Co*plications of the disease involve the e,e, 2idne,, nerves, blood vessels and other or-ans. (1arrison.s Principles of Internal Medicine, 3raun!ald, et al. %%th Edition+. >e have conducted a thorou-h stud, of the facts of the case and after a careful anal,sis of the evidence sub*itted, !e believe appellant.s clai* does not fall !ithin the purvie! of the E*plo,ees Co*pensation 'a! (P.D. 6)6, as a*ended+. he records of the instant case is (sic+ bereft of evidence !hich !ould sho! a causal relation bet!een the ail*ent (diabetes *ellitus+ and appellant.s for*er e*plo,*ent and !or2in- conditions. he case cannot, therefore, be considered as co*pensable. (Rollo, pp. %&:%5+ ;nsuccessful belo!, petitioner is no! before us. Petitioner alle-es that, as Revenue E7a*iner, he spent endless hours in e7a*inin- volu*inous inco*e ta7 returns !hich sub?ected hi* to constant ph,sical and *ental stress (Petition, p. 8+. Citing the case of Millora v. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. (/.R. No. 65#8), )& 9ul, %5&6, %"4 SCR$ %#%+, he clai*s that these stresses in e*plo,*ent are *edicall, reco-ni@ed as predisposin- factors in the develop*ent of diabetes ( Rollo, pp. %%:%)+. >e are constrained to re?ect petitioner.s sub*issions. ;nder the 'abor Code, in order that an e*plo,ee *a, be entitled to sic2ness benefits, the, *ust have resulted fro* an, illness (a+ definitel, accepted as an occupational disease, or (b+ caused b, e*plo,*ent, sub?ect to proof that the ris2 of contractin- the sa*e is increased b, !or2in- conditions. Inas*uch as petitioner.s 0diabetic retinopath,0 and its underl,in- ail*ent, 0diabetes *ellitus,0 are not listed in the able of Occupational Diseases e*bodied in $nne7 0$0 of the Rules on E*plo,ees. Co*pensation, petitioner is reAuired to prove a positive proposition, !hich is, that the ris2 of contractin- the disease is increased b, !or2in- conditions (Rodri-ue@ v. ECC, /.R. No. "6"#", )& Septe*ber %5&5, %8& SCR$ 4<+. hat burden of proof, petitioner has failed to dischar-e. Petitioner.s 0diabetic retinopath,0 is a co*plication lin2ed !ith his diabetic condition, fro* !hich he !as sufferin- for t!ent,:five ()#+ ,ears. he ver, *edical ter*inolo-, e*phasi@es that co*plication. In other !ords, petitioner.s e,e condition !as not contracted b, reason of his e*plo,*ent but ca*e about as a co*plication of an underl,in- disease. Neither can it be said, therefore, that the ris2 of contractin- the e,e ail*ent !as increased b, his !or2in- conditions for irrespective of those conditions, the co*plication could have set in.

he underl,in- ail*ent, 0diabetes *ellitus0 is neither !or2 connected. It is a *etabolic and a fa*ilial disease to !hich one is pre:disposed b, reason of heredit,, obesit, or old a-e. >hile petitioner states that no one in his fa*il, is sufferin- fro* the illness, -enetic susceptibilit, is a factor that stretches fro* -eneration to -eneration. $nd even assu*in- that petitioner has satisfactoril, proven that he is not predisposed to the disease due to heredit,, he has not sho!n that he is not predisposed thereto due to old a-e or obesit,. Stated other!ise, irrespective of the t,pe of !or2 that petitioner had been en-a-ed in, he could have contracted diabetes. >e thus find no causal relation bet!een petitioner.s basic illness, 0diabetes *ellitus0 and its co*plication 0diabetic retinopath,0 !ith his e*plo,*ent and !or2inconditions nor can !e sa, that the nature of his !or2 had increased the ris2 of his contractin- either ail*ent. he *edical certificate ($nne7 $, Petition+, issued in %5&), !hich certified that 0visual i*pair*ent !as the result of continuous visual insult in the pursuit of his duties, 0 and that 0cataract and vitreous he*orrha-e sets in ascomplications of both e,es,0 carefull, avoided an, *ention of the cause of the co*plications, i.e., the patient.s diabetic condition. It !as the dia-nosis of 0diabetic retinopath,0 *ade b, the E,e Referral Center that pinpointed the e7act ail*ent. >hile, indeed, in the case of Millora (supra+, it !as reco-ni@ed that ph,sical and e*otional stresses could be predisposin- factors to the develop*ent of diabetes, that !as because it !as sho!n therein that the clai*ant !as not predisposed to 0diabetes *ellitus0 b, reason of old a-e, obesit, or heredit,. Si*ilar proof is !antin- herein. >hat has been established is that petitioner had been sufferin- fro* diabetes for no less than t!ent,:five ()#+ ,ears, !hich *eans even before he beca*e a Revenue E7a*iner, !hen he alle-es that he !as sub?ected to ph,sical and e*otional stresses. >1EREBORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the ?ud-*ent under revie! is hereb, $BBIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.