FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243347. April 10, 2019.]
IRIS V. RAFANAN-IÑIGO, petitioner, vs.SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND ATT-AQUA TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243347 (Iris V. Rafanan-Iñigo v. Social Security System and ATT-Aqua Treatment Technology, Inc.) — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its May 30, 2018 Decision 1 and the November 19, 2018 2 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 148209, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
We find no error in the CA's pronouncement that Iris V. Rafanan-Iñigo (petitioner) cannot be deemed a beneficiary of the deceased, Jessie de Leon Iñigo, considering that their marriage was indisputably declared null and void years before his death. Petitioner now avers that she is making the claim on behalf of their son, Jericho Royce R. Iñigo. However, no proof was ever submitted to confirm the child's age or status, to satisfy the requirements for a legitimate child to be considered a beneficiary. HTcADC
Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that either petitioner or the child is considered a beneficiary, the claim for funeral/death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 must still fail.
As correctly ruled by the CA, although cerebro-vascular accident (which includes acute parenchymal hemorrhage) is listed as an occupational or work-related disease, the compensability still requires compliance with all the conditions set forth in the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation (P.D. No. 626). For cerebro-vascular accident, the claimant must prove the following: (1) there must be a history, which should be proved, of trauma at work, specifically, to the head, due to unusual and extraordinary physical or mental strain or event, or undue exposure to noxious gases in industry; (2) there must be a direct connection between the trauma or exertion in the course of the employment and the cerebro-vascular attack; and (3) the trauma or exertion then and there caused a brain hemorrhage. 3 Here, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that these conditions were present.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 30, 2018 Decision and the November 19, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148209 are hereby AFFIRMED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave; Carandang, J., no part; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated April 2, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-41; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
2.Id. at pp. 43-44.
3.Villamor v. Employees Compensation Commission, et al., 800 Phil. 269, 280 (2016), citing GSIS v. Baul, 529 Phil. 390, 395-396 (2006).