8/13/2019 Guia vs ECC

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME 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 bpetitioner on his o!n behalf, challen-es the Decision of the E*ploees Co*pensation Co**ission (ECC+, !hich affir*ed the findin- of the /overn*ent ServiceInsurance Sste* (/SIS+ that petitioners ail*ent 0Proliferative Diabetic Retinopath !ith Vitreous 1e*orrha-e0 is not co*pensable.

Petitioner !as first e*ploed 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- RevenueEnforce*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 ee specialist !ho dia-nosed his visual i*pair*ent as 0the resultof continuous visual insult in the pursuit for his duties, !herein cataract and vitreous he*orrha-e sets in as co*plication of both ees0 ($nne7 $, Petition+. 'aserphoto:coa-ulation !as prescribed and rendered in %5&4 b another ee specialist of the Ee Referral Center !ho found petitioner to be sufferin- fro*0Proliferative Diabetic Retinopath !ith Vitreous 1e*orrha-e0 (Petition, pp. 4:"+. On & $u-ust %5&6, he under!ent panretinal photo:coa-ulation at theSoutheastern Ee Center of North Carolina, ;.S.$. (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 c lai* on the -round thatpetitioners underlin- 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 hadincreased the ris2 of his contractin- his ee ail*ent. his Decision !as affir*ed b the ECC on %8 9anuar %55e have conducted a thorou-h stud of the facts of the case and after a careful analsis of the evidence sub*itted, !e believeappellants clai* does not fall !ithin the purvie! of the E*ploees 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+ andappellants 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 phsical and*ental stress (Petition, p. 8+. Citingthe case of Millora v.Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.(/.R. No. 65#8), )& 9ul %5&6, %"4 SCR$ %#%+, he clai*sthat 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 petitioners sub*issions.

;nder the 'abor Code, in order that an e*ploee *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 petitioners 0diabetic retinopath0 and its underlin- ail*ent, 0diabetes *ellitus,0 are not listed in the able of Occupational Diseases e*bodied in$nne7 0$0 of the Rules on E*ploees Co*pensation, petitioner is reAuired to prove a positive proposition, !hich is, that the ris2 of contractin- the disease isincreased b !or2in- conditions (Rodri-ue@ v. ECC, /.R. No. "6"#", )& Septe*ber %5&5, %8& SCR$ 4

8/13/2019 Guia vs ECC

2/2

he underlin- 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 notpredisposed thereto due to old a-e or obesit. Stated other!ise, irrespective of the tpe of !or2 that petitioner had been en-a-ed in, he could have contracteddiabetes.

>e thus find no causal relation bet!een petitioners basic illness, 0diabetes *ellitus0 and its co*plication 0diabetic retinopath0 !ith his e*plo*ent and !or2in-conditions 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 hisduties, 0 and that 0cataract and vitreous he*orrha-e sets in ascomplications of both ees,0 carefull avoided an *ention of the cause of the co*plications, i.e.,the patients diabetic condition. It !as the dia-nosis of 0diabetic retinopath0 *ade b the Ee Referral Center that pinpointed the e7act ail*ent.

>hile, indeed, in the case of Millora (supra+, it !as reco-ni@ed that phsical 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 hebeca*e a Revenue E7a*iner, !hen he alle-es that he !as sub?ected to phsical 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.