MENEZ VS ECC particular occupation that is, those things which science and industry have not yet

Facts: learned how to eliminate.

Gloria D. Menez was as a school teacher whoretired on August 31, 1975
under the disability retirement plan at the age of 54 years after 32 years of teaching,
Thus the ailment of Menez is considered as occupational disease. All public
due to rheumatoid arthritis and pneumonitis. Before her retirement, she was assigned
high school teachers are the most underpaid but overworked employees of the
at Raja Soliman High School in Tondo-Binondo, Manila near a dirty creek. 1976,
government, are subject to emotional strains and stresses. In the case of the Menez,
petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as
her emotional tension is heightened by the fact that the high school in which she
amended, with respondent Government Service Insurance System
teaches is situated in a tough area Binondo district, which is inhabited by thugs and
other criminal elements and further aggravated by the heavy pollution and
GSIS denied said claim on the ground that petitioner's ailments, rheumatoid
congestion therein as well as the stinking smell of the dirty Estero de la Reina nearby.
arthritis and pneumonitis, are not occupational diseases taking into consideration the
There is ample proof that petitioner contracted such ailments by reason of her
nature of her particular work. Based on the evaluation of medical authorities, her
occupation as a public high school teacher due to her exposure to the adverse
ailments were found to be the least causally related to her duties and conditions of
working conditions.
work and thus, the ailments are not work-connected.
Republic Act 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Charta for Public School
Teachers, recognized the enervating effects on the health of school teachers when it
GSIS reaffirmed its stand on the case and elevated the entire records
directed in one of its provisions that "Teachers shall be protected against the
thereof to the Employees' Compensation Commission for review and ECC and with its
consequences of employment injury in accordance with existing laws. The effects of
decision. The Commission fully agrees with the respondent system that appellant's
the physical and nervous strain on the teachers's health shall be recognized as
employment has nothing to do with the development of her disabling illnesses.
compensable occupational diseases in accordance with laws"
Appellant's ailments are not listed as occupational diseases for the employment she
was engaged in as to merit compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626, as
Under the New Labor Code Rule 111 of its Implementing Rules, "only
amended
sickness or injury which occurred on or after January 1, 1975 and the resulting
disability or death shall be compensable under these Rules. It must be borne in mind
Menez claims she contracted pneumonitis and/or bronchiectasis with
that petitioner was a teacher of a High school in Binondo District and exposed to the
hemoptysis and rheumatoid arthritis after wetting and chilling and aggravated by the
heavily polluted air and congestions and other elements.
condition and nature of her work during the course of employment which are
permanent and recurring in nature and work-connected.
Consequently, this Court finds petitioner to have substantially shown that
the risk of contracting her ailments had been increased by unfavorable working
Again respondents contend that petitioner's ailments are not among the
conditions.
occupational diseases listed as compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as
amended, or under Annex "A" of the Rules on Employees' Compensation and
Citing Dimaano v. WCC, the Court held that illnesses of rheumatic arthritis
Commission' is supported by substantial evidence in the form of accepted medical
with sub-acute exacerbation and hypertension by Dimaano who was herself a teacher
findings.
is service-connected considering her working conditions and nature of employment.
As the petitioner is similarly-situated, the same rule should apply.
Issue:
Whether Menez ailment can be considered occupational disease and can claim for
Furthermore, it must be stressed that "the approval of petitioner's
compensation.
application for retirement is a clear indication that she was physically incapacitated to
render efficient service. Petitioner was allowed to retire under the disability
Held:
retirement plan on August 31, 1975 at the age of 54 which is way below the
Yes, her ailment may be considered as occupational disease and she can
compulsory retirement age of 65. Under Memorandum Circular No. 133 issued by the
claim for compensation.
retirement shall be recommended for approval only when "the employee applicant is
As defined occupational disease is one which results from the nature of the
below 65 years of age and is physically incapacitated to render further efficient
employment, and by “nature” is meant conditions to which all employees of a class
service." Obviously, petitioner thus retired by reason of her ailments.
are subject and which produce the disease as a natural incident of a particular
occupation, and attach to that occupation a hazard which distinguishes it from the
usual run of occupations and is in excess of the hazard attending the employment in
general. To be occupational, the disease must be one "due wholly to causes and
conditions which are normal and constantly present and characteristic of the
Narazo vs ECC
Facts:
Geronimo Narazo was employed for 38 years as Budget Examiner in the Office of the
Governor, Province of Negros Occidental. His duties included preparation of the
budget of the Province, financial reports and review or examination of the budget of
some provincial and municipal offices.
Narazo died at the age of 57. Medical records shows that he was confined 3
times at the Doña Corazon L. Montelibano Hospital in Bacolod City, for urinary
retention, abdominal pain and anemia and diagnosed to be suffering from
"obstructive nepropathy due to benign prostatic hypertrophy", commonly known as
"Uremia."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner, as the widow of the deceased, filed a claim with the GSIS for
death benefits for the death of her husband, under the Employees’ Compensation
Law but was denied on the ground that the cause of death of Narazo is not listed as
an occupational disease Petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming the cause of
her husband’s death is not considered as an occupational disease but his job as
Budget Examiner which required long hours of sedentary work, coupled with stress
and pressure, caused him many times to delay urination, which eventually led to the
development of his ailments. The GSIS denied said motion for reconsideration.
The ECC affirmed the decision of the GSIS on the ground that the ailments
of the deceased could not be attributed to employment factors and as impressed by
medical experts, benign prostatic hypertrophy is quite common among men 50 years
of age.
Petitioner avers that the nature, length of time, and circumstances of the
occupation of the deceased were not considered in determining whether the work of
the said deceased had increased the risks of contracting the ailments which caused
his death. The work of the deceased, which required long sedentary work under
pressure, aggravated the risk of contracting the disease leading to his hospital
confinement and death.
The ECC is empowered to determine and approve occupational diseases and
work-related illnesses that may be considered compensable based on peculiar
hazards of employment. Under Rule III, section 1, paragraph 3(b) of Presidential
Decree No. 626, as amended, defines a "compensable sickness" as 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.
Sickness or death caused by said sickness is compensable if the same is
listed as an occupational disease. If it is not so listed, compensation may still be
recovered if the illness was aggravated by employment. It is incumbent upon the
claimant to show proof that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his
working conditions.
The cause of death of petitioner’s husband is by Uremia and it was proved
that it is work-connected disease the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by
the nature of the work as a Budget examiner was dealt with many factors, so much
so that petitioner is entitled to receive compensation benefits for the death of her
husband.
As per finding of the ECC, "Uremia is a toxic clinical condition characterized
by restlessness, muscular twitchings, mental disturbance, nausea, and vomiting
associated with renal insufficiency brought about by the retention in blood of
nitrogeneous urinary waste products." One of its causes is the obstruction in the flow
of urinary waste products.
Under the increased risk theory the claimant must show proof of reasonable work-
connection, not necessarily direct causal relation. The degree of proof required is
merely substantial evidence which means such relevant evidence as will support a
decision, or clear and convincing evidence.

The ECC argues that petitioner failed to show proof that the disease which
caused the death of her husband is work-connected; and that no credence could be
given to petitioner’s claim that her husband’s delayed urination gave rise to the
development of his ailments, for lack of medical bases. Allthat petitioner has shown,
according to the ECC, are mere aggravation, and not work-connection causes. 5

Issue:
Whether the widow of the deceased can claim of death benefits under GSIS under
ECL

Held:
Yes.
 Limbo vs ECC
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
decision, promulgated on October 24, 2000, and the resolution,
promulgated on January 29, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 51528.
Petitioner Ruben T. Limbo was employed at Nestlé Philippines,
Incorporated from November 25, 1966 to December 31, 1996, first, as
a salesman until he was promoted as Area Sales Supervisor in 1977.
Sometime in December 1994, Limbo was confined for one week
at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) because of joint pains. His
work-up revealed that he had elevated BUN, creatinine and
anemia. When Limbo was subjected to a renal ultrasound, it was
further discovered that he had chronic renal disease and he was
forthwith referred to a nephrologist and was advised to undergo a
kidney transplant. On January 2, 1995, Limbo underwent a renal
transplant at the PGH and was discharged therefrom on January 13,
1995.
Limbo filed a claim for compensation benefits before the Social
Security System (SSS), invoking Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 626,
as amended. However, the claim was denied on the ground that
Limbo’s illness, “end-stage renal disease secondary to uric acid
nephropathy,” had no causal relationship to his job as Area Sales
Supervisor. Limbo promptly appealed to the Employees
Compensation Commission (ECC). In a decision, dated December 2,
1998, the ECC affirmed the decision of the SSS and dismissed the
appeal for lack of merit.
Unsatisfied with the decision, Limbo went to the Court of Appeals
for relief. However, in the now assailed decision, the appellate court
dismissed the petition. Limbo’s motion for reconsideration was later
denied.
Hence, the present recourse.
The only issue here is whether or not “end-stage renal disease
secondary to uric acid nephropathy” is compensable under P.D. 626,
as amended.
We grant the petition.
Under the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, “(f)or
the sickness and the resulting disability to be compensable, the
sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under
Annex “A” of these Rules with the conditions set therein satisfied;
otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions.”[1] Concededly, “end-
stage renal disease secondary to uric acid nephropathy” is not among
the Occupational Diseases under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation. This, however, would not automatically
bar petitioner’s claim for as long as he could prove that the risk of
contracting the illness was increased by his working conditions.
Petitioner’s job description showed that he was responsible for
the following:
(1) Territory’s collection, merchandising, market hygiene and
promotion goals;
(2) Nestlé’s principal satisfaction provider to the company’s
customers and business partners, government and other
significant entities;
(3) Principal Liason of the territory with the National Sales
Manager, Areas Sales Manager and other Nestlé units;
(4) Leads and manages territory sales force and 3rd party
support as follows:
Field Staff - 8 - 15
Contractuals (promo) - 10 - 20
Contractuals (PDD) - 20 - 40 [2]
Petitioner’s areas of responsibility included Manila, Bulacan,
Pampanga and Nueva Ecija.
Considering the workload and areas of responsibility of petitioner
in this case, it is not unlikely for him to develop hypertension, which in
turn led to uremia. It should be stressed that in determining whether a
disease is compensable, it is enough that there exists a reasonable
work connection.[3] It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the
workmen’s claim is based is probable since probability, not certainty,
is the touchstone.[4]
We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the
findings of petitioner’s attending physician supported the claim that his
disease was work-related. Thus:
MEDICAL ABSTRACT: orders the Social Security System to pay petitioner the compensation
benefits due him under P.D. 626.
Mr. Ruben Limbo is a 58 year-old male who was first seen by SO ORDERED.
me in 1994.

He presented with a long history of hypertension requiring

multiple drug therapy. He also had gout which was complicated
by a urethral obstruction in 1997 due to a uric acid stone.

At the time of consult, he already had marked azotemia,

metabolic acidosis and diffuse renal parenchymal disease. He
was advised that he will eventually need dialysis or transplant.

In January 1995, he underwent a living related kidney

transplant. He has gone well since then. He continued to have
gout and hypertension post transplant, otherwise, his kidney
function has been stable.

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Limbo suffered from a long history of hypertension and

gout. This has led to several complications like hypertensive
heart disease, hypertensive nephrosclerosis and eventually
renal failure. He was hypertensive while still employed and
certainly, the stress at work could have aggravated his
condition.

AGNES D. MEJIA, M.D.

Nephrologist [5]

As correctly pointed out by the OSG, a physician’s report is the

best evidence of work-connection of workmen’s ailments and can be
the basis of an award even if the physician was not presented as a
witness.[6] We have no reason to doubt the findings of Dr. Mejia who is
an expert in her field of work. Verily, petitioner was able to show that
his ailment was work-related.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE and is
hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated
on October 24, 2000, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court