ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213369. August 9, 2017.]
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), petitioner,vs. RODOLFO D. SAWI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 9, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213369 (SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), Petitioner, v. RODOLFO D. SAWI, Respondent.) —The Court NOTES:
(1) petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated July 27, 2016, stating that petitioner sent through e-mail the required soft copy of the Signed Compliance of May 18, 2016;
(2) respondent's undated letter stating that (a) from January 21-24, 2007, he underwent a series of laboratory tests confirming he is sick with pulmonary tuberculosis; (b) his claims from the Social Security System were denied because according to the system, diabetes caused his tuberculosis; and (c) his diabetes was established only on February 15, 2007, and praying that this manifestation be noted in resolving his claim;
(3) respondent's Motion to Hand Down Decision stating that (a) the petition has been pending before the Court for thirty-six (36) months; (b) he is now sickly and old; and (c) he and his wife depend on their Social Security System pension for food and medicine; and praying that a decision be rendered in this case; and
(4) respondent's handwritten letter dated March 14, 2017 praying that the Court render a decision on the case. ATICcS
The petitioner appeals the decision and resolution promulgated on January 8, 2014 1 and July 9, 2014, 2 respectively, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision issued by the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) dismissing the respondent's claim for employee's benefits, and granting him disability and sickness benefits under the Employee's Compensation Act, thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 26, 2011 of the Employees Compensation Commission, as well as the Decision dated March 25, 2011 of the SSS-Medical Operations Department are hereby REVERSED and SETASIDE. The Social Security System is DIRECTEDTOPAY Rodolfo G. Sawi's claim for disability and sickness benefits under the Employee's Compensation Act.
SOORDERED. 3
Antecedents
The Central Azucarera de Tarlac employed the respondent as Junior Foreman at its Property, Construction and Maintenance Department from April 10, 1978 until September 20, 2007, 4 with the following duties and responsibilities, namely:
Responsible for the supervision of utilities assigned to maintain good housekeeping in the factory complex and vicinity;
1. Assigns work of utilities at the start of the shift and directs instructions on work procedures related to their assigned tasks.
2. Answers call from various operating units in matter[s] of garbage disposal and other hauling activities.
3. Regularly checks sanitary facilities to determine and recommend schedule required for maintenance and repair.
4. Estimates requisitions of materials, tolls and equipment needed.
5. Inspects work in-progress [and] upon completion.
6. Prepares records of work completed and supplies used.
7. Assists superiors in the preparation of reports pertaining [to] the units operations.
8. Performs other duties assign[ed] by superiors. 5
The respondent discovered that he had pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) on both lobes of the lungs after undergoing a chest X-ray on January 23, 2007. He was also diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus on February 15, 2007. 6 Consequently, he filed his claim for disability under the SSS Law (Republic Act No. 1161, as amended) and the Employees Compensation Law (Presidential Decree No. 626) in the SSS Branch Office in Tarlac City. The SSS Branch Office initially granted the claim.
On August, 13, 2009, the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) endorsed the respondent's claim to the SSS-Medical Operations Department (SSS-MOD), which in turn forwarded the same to the SSS Branch Office in Tarlac City. This time, the SSS Branch Office in Tarlac City denied the claim because of his family history of diabetes and cigarette smoking.
The respondent moved for the review of the denial of his claim with SSS-MOD but the SSS Branch Office in Tarlac City denied his motion for that purpose on the same ground. 7
On May 26, 2011, the ECC issued a decision denying the respondent's appeal, 8 concluding that his diabetic condition had predisposed him to contracting PTB; and that he had not shown that his working conditions had increased the risk of contracting PTB.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition for review with the CA.
Decision of the CA
On January 8, 2014, the CA promulgated its assailed decision reversing the ruling of the ECC upon a finding that there was a reasonable connection between the work being performed by the respondent and the risk of contracting PTB in the workplace. 9 TIADCc
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied its motion to that effect on July 9, 2014. 10
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
The petitioner contends that the CA erred:
I
x x x IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT'S PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS IS COMPENSABLE UNDER P.D. NO. 626, AS AMENDED.
II
x x x IN FINDING REASONABLE WORK CONNECTION BETWEEN HIS JOB AS JUNIOR FOREMAN AT THE PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC AND HIS PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS. 11
The petitioner maintains that the respondent's family history of Diabetes Mellitus (Type II) 12 and his having been a smoker from 1980 to 1985 had predisposed him to contract PTB; 13 that although PTB was listed as an occupational disease, Paragraph 27, Annex "A" of Presidential Decree No. 626 required proof that his occupation involved close and frequent contact with a source of tuberculosis infection; 14 that findings of the medical examiners of the petitioner should be given weight; 15 that the supervisory duties of the respondent as a Junior Foreman could not have increased the risk of contracting PTB; 16 and that he failed to present proof that the working conditions in the workplace had caused his PTB. 17
In refutation, the respondent submits that his constant exposure to harsh chemicals and noxious elements emanating from the garbage being collected daily, the extreme changes in temperature in the workplace, and fatigue resulting from the discharge of his daily duties increased the probability of his contracting PTB. 18
Did the CA seriously err in granting disability and sickness benefits to the respondent?
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Social justice is at the core of the liberal application of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 626. As the principal agency tasked to implement the law, the petitioner needs to be reminded of its mandate to promote social justice by adopting a liberal attitude in favor of the working class. In this connection, the Court has fittingly observed:
P.D. No. 626, as amended, is said to have abandoned the presumption of compensability and the theory of aggravation prevalent under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Despite such abandonment, however, the present law has not ceased to be an employees' compensation law or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails, and the official agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially in light of the compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances. 19
This case confronts us with the plight of a worker who pleads for compensability due to his having contracted the illness during the period of his employment. Yet, despite PTB being listed as an occupational disease, the petitioner has obstinately denied his pleas by adverting to his family history of Diabetes Mellitus as having increased his risk of contracting the disease. It also insists that his duties as Junior Foreman could not have increased the probability of his contracting PTB considering that his work was merely supervisory; and that his work did not involve close and frequent contact with the source of the infection as provided by paragraph 27, Annex "A" of Presidential Decree No. 626.
We are not persuaded by the petitioner's insistence. cSEDTC
Exposure to dust and dirt is a predisposing cause of tuberculosis, and tends to produce fibrosis of the lungs that weakens resistance to any latent tuberculosis infection and reactivates the infection. 20 Although medical science has found that Diabetes Mellitus increases the propensity to contract PTB, we do not discount the possibility that the respondent's daily duties as Junior Foreman as well as his working environment had made him more susceptible to the disease. In GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystemv. Valenciano, 21 the Court has pointed out:
As regards pneumonia and pulmonary tuberculosis, both are listed in Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation as occupational diseases and are deemed compensable. As found by the appellate court, the possible cause of these diseases may be environmental or occupational depending on the level of sanitation of the surroundings and the health condition of the persons he mingles with. While diabetic persons are prone to various infections, it is also equally true that one's susceptibility to these maladies is increased by the occupational and environmental exposure to the pathogens, not to mention fatigue and mental and emotional strain that affects the physical condition of a person. 22
Accordingly, we subscribe to the astute observation by the CA about the relationship between the work performed by the respondent and his risk of contracting PTB, viz.:
[I]t is not disputed that petitioner Sawi's work as a Junior Foreman at the Property, Construction and Maintenance Department of Central Azucarera de Tarlac, a factory complex, required him to be exposed to various chemicals and harmful elements relative to sanitation, garbage collection and disposal, other hauling activities and checking sanitary facilities for maintenance and repair. As aptly argued by the petitioner, fatigue as well as constant exposure to harsh working conditions since his employment with the factory in 1977 had an adverse impact on his health making him easily susceptible to pulmonary tuberculosis.
Verily, the degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. While claimant must adduce substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness is increased by the working conditions to which an employee is exposed to[,] We cannot close our eyes to any reasonablework-related connection of the worker's ailment and his employment. Any doubt on this matter has to be interpreted in favor of the employee, considering that P.D. No. 626 is a social legislation. 23
In view of the foregoing, the CA did not err in promulgating its assailed decision because it unquestionably relied on substantial evidence in finding a causal relationship between the respondent's illness and the nature of his employment. AIDSTE
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for lacking in merit; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 8, 2014 by the Court of Appeals; and DIRECTS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-34; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2.Id. at 35.
3.Id. at 33.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id. at 53-54.
6.Id. at 27.
7.Id. at 27-28.
8.Id. at 38-41.
9.Id. at 26-40.
10.Id. at 35.
11.Id. at 8.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 11.
14.Id. at 12-19.
15.Id. at 19-20.
16.Id. at 21.
17.Id. at 22.
18.Id. at 182-185.
19.Government Service Insurance System v. Valenciano, G.R. No. 168821, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 109, 118; citing Salalima v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 146360, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 715, 722-723.
20.Delegente v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-47460, November 2, 1982, 118 SCRA 67, 80.
21. G.R. No. 168821, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 109.
22.Id. at 117.
23.Rollo, pp. 32-33.