Salalima v. ECC & SSS, GR No. 146360, May 20, 2004

7/21/2019 Salalima v. ECC & SSS, GR No. 146360, May 20, 2004

1/5

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 146360. May 20, 2004]

AZUCENA O. SALALIMA, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEESCOMPENSATION COMMISSION an SOCIAL SECURITYSYSTEM, respondents.

! E C I S I O N

YNARES"SANTIAGO, J.#

Before us is a petition for review on certiorariof the Decision

1

of the Court ofAppeals dated April 1! """ as well as its Resolution dated Dece#$er %! """!which affir#ed the plo'ees( Co#pensation Co##ission(s denial of petitioner(sclai# for co#pensation $enefits resultin) fro# the death of her hus$and!*uancho Salali#a! under +residential Decree No, %%! as a#ended,

+etitioner(s hus$and! *uancho S, Salali#a! was e#plo'ed for twent'-nine'ears as a route helper and su$se.uentl' as route sales#an for the /e'caua'an+lant of Coca-Cola Bottlers +hils,! Incorporated, In 100! durin) an annualco#pan' #edical e2a#ination! *uancho was dia)nosed with #ini#al pul#onar'tu$erculosis,3is illness re#ained stationar' until Octo$er 1004 when *uanchowas confined at the /anila Doctor(s 3ospital to under)o section $iops', 3is

$iops' revealed that he had 5Adenocarcino#a! poorl' differentiated! #etastatic6,7Conse.uentl'! he underwent che#otherap' at the /a8ati /edical Center, OnFe$ruar' 1! 1009! he was found to $e sufferin) fro# pneu#onia, 4On Fe$ruar'14! 1009! he was confined at the /a8ati /edical Center, 3e died two da's lateron Fe$ruar' 1%! 1009 due to 5Adenocarcino#a of the :un)s with widespread#etastasis to Nec8! Brain! +eritoneal Cavit'! +aracaval :'#ph Nodes! A$scen;

Acute Renal Failure; Septice#ia; on Bondoc and Anna$elle Bonifacioreco##ended the denial of petitioner(s clai# on the )round that

Adenocarcino#a of the :un)s ?Cancer of the :un)s@ had no causal relationshipwith *uancho(s o$ as a route sales#an,%+etitioner(s #otion for reconsiderationwas denied, 3ence! petitioner $rou)ht the case to the plo'ees(Co#pensation Co##ission ?&CC@! which affir#ed the decision of the SSS, In itsDecisiondated Octo$er ! 1000! the &CC relied upon the ualit' Assurance/edical Report prepared $' Dr, /a, Victoria /, A$esa#is for the SSS statin)

1 +enned $' Associate *ustice Ro#eo *, Calleo! Sr, as concurred in $' Associate*ustices Cancio C, =arcia and /artin S, Villara#a! *r,

Roent)enolo)ical Report dated 1% Dece#$er 100! Court of Appeals Rollo! p, 1,

7 SSS +h'sician(s /edical Report dated 1 Nove#$er 100! Rollo! p, 9,

4 Roent)enolo)ical Report dated 1 Fe$ruar' 1009! Rollo p, 4,

9 Supra! note 7,

% Id,

Rollo! p, %",


2/5

that *uancho(s e2posure to s#o) and dust is not associated with thedevelop#ent of lun) cancer,

+etitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals ar)uin) that *uancho(sroute as a sales#an e2posed hi# to all 8inds of pollutants! not to #ention thedail' ha>ards and fati)ue that ca#e with his tas8s, She pointed out that the SSS

and the &CC disre)arded *uancho(s #edical histor' and the fact that the ris8 ofcontractin) *uancho(s ail#ent was increased $' the nature of his wor8, 0 In itsCo##ent! &CC averred that the presu#ption of co#pensa$ilit' and the theor' ofa))ravation prevalent under the or8#en(s Co#pensation Act have $eena$andoned,


3/5

Adenocarcino#a of the lun)s! he nonetheless suffered fro# two listedoccupational diseases! na#el' pul#onar' tu$erculosis and pneu#onia! prior tohis unti#el' de#ise! which she insists ustifies her clai# for death $enefits,

e find #erit in the petition,

+,D, No, %%1

a#ended Title II of Boo8 IV on the &CC and State InsuranceFund of the :a$or Code, ation $ein)$ased upon the cell t'pes that co#pose the carcino#a, Broncho)eniccarcino#a! #ore co##onl' 8nown as lun) cancer! is the ter# used to desi)natenearl' all t'pes of #ali)nant lun) tu#ors, /edical $oo8s list the etiolo)' of lun)cancers as followsE ci)arette s#o8in)! occupational e2posure! a$% &o''()$on! andother factors such as &%**+$)$n- '(n- aa-*and )enetic influences,7

e a)ree with petitioner that the respondent )overn#ent a)encies failed tota8e into consideration *uancho(s #edical histor' in their assess#ent of theclai# for $enefits filed $' petitioner, For a considera$le stretch of *uancho(s sta'at Coca-Cola! he was found to $e sufferin) fro# pul#onar' tu$erculosis,Several #onths $efore his de#ise! he was dia)nosed with Adenocarcino#a ofthe lun)s, A little over two wee8s $efore his death! *uancho was afflicted withpneu#onia, The o$vious deduction is that *uancho! fro# the ti#e he ac.uired

1 +ro#ul)ated on Dece#$er 104,

1 A#ended Rules on plo'ees( Co#pensation! Rule III! Section 1?$@,

10 A#ended Rules on plo'ees( Co#pensation Anne2 A ?1@,

" :i#$o v, plo'ees( Co#pensation Co##ission and Social Securit' S'ste#! =,R, No,14%01!7" *ul' ""! 79 SCRA 4%%,

1 Court of Appeals Rollo! p, 70,

Supra! note 9,

7 Allen R, /'ers! Medicine! 10%! pp, -,
http://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2002/jul2002/146891.HTM


4/5

pul#onar' tu$erculosis until his passin) awa'! was predisposed to varied lun)diseases,

It is worth notin) that tu$erculosis is #ost co##onl' confused withcarcino#a of the lun) $ecause the hi)hest incidence of $oth diseases is in theupper lo$e of the lun)s and in older #en, The s'#pto#s of $oth diseases

include loss of wei)ht! chronic cou)h! $lood-strea8ed sputu# and #ild fever, 4

:i8ewise! nu#erous studies indicate that scars within the lun)s and diffusepul#onar' fi$rosis are associated with a sli)htl' increased incidence of lun)cancer,9Tu$erculosis is a disease characteri>ed $' lesions in the lun)s as wellas tu$erculous scars,% Thus! in li)ht of *uancho(s continued e2posure todetri#ental wor8 environ#ent and constant fati)ue! the possi$ilit' that *uancho(s

Adenocarcino#a of the lun)s developed fro# the worsenin) of his pul#onar'tu$erculosis is not re#ote,

The de)ree of proof re.uired under +,D, No, %% is #erel' su$stantialevidence! which #eans! 5such relevant evidence as a reasona$le #ind #i)ht

accept as ade.uate to support a conclusion,6 hat the law re.uires is areasona$le wor8-connection and not a direct causal relation, It is enou)h thatthe h'pothesis on which the wor8#enHs clai# is $ased is pro$a$le, /edicalopinion to the contrar' can $e disre)arded especiall' where there is so#e $asisin the facts for inferrin) a wor8-connection, +ro$a$ilit'! not certaint'! is thetouchstone, In *uancho(s case! we $elieve that this pro$a$ilit' e2ists,*uancho(s o$ re.uired lon) hours on the streets as well as his carr'in) of casesof soft drin8s durin) sales calls, The co#$ination of fati)ue and the pollutantsthat a$ound in his wor8 environ#ent veril' contri$uted to the worsenin) of hisalread' wea8 respirator' s'ste#, 3is continuous e2posure to these factors #a'have led to the develop#ent of his cancer of the lun)s,

It escapes reason as well as one(s sense of e.uit' that *uancho(s heirsshould now $e denied co#pensation ?death@ $enefits for the sole reason that hisillness i##ediatel' $efore he died was not co#pensa$le in his line of wor8, Thepicture $eco#es #ore a$surd when we consider that had *uancho died a few'ears earlier! when the dia)nosis on hi# revealed onl' pul#onar' tu$erculosis!his heirs would not perhaps $e )oin) throu)h this arduous path to clai# their$enefits, Den'in) petitioner(s clai# is tanta#ount to punishin) the# for*uancho(s death of a )raver illness,

+,D, %%! as a#ended! is said to have a$andoned the presu#ption ofco#pensa$ilit' and the theor' of a))ravation prevalent under the or8#en(s

Co#pensation Act, Despite such a$andon#ent! however! the present law hasnot ceased to $e an e#plo'ees( co#pensation law or a social le)islation; hence!the li$eralit' of the law in favor of the wor8in) #an and wo#an still prevails! andthe official a)enc' char)ed $' law to i#ple#ent the constitutional )uarantee ofsocial ustice should adopt a li$eral attitude in favor of the e#plo'ee in decidin)clai#s for co#pensa$ilit'! especiall' in li)ht of the co#passionate polic' towardsla$or which the 10 Constitution vivifies and enhances,

/EREORE! in view of the fore)oin)! the petition for review on certiorari is=RANT&D, The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-=,R, S+ No, 9%14

4

3arrison(s +rinciples of Internal /edicine! 10"! %th

ed,! p, ,9 Supra! note 7,

% Supra! note 4! pp, "-1,

Sal#one v, plo'eesH Co#pensation Co##ission and Social Securit' S'ste#! =,R,No, 1470! % Septe#$er """! 741 SCRA 19",

plo'ees( Co#pensation Co##ission and =overn#ent Service Insurance S'ste# v,Court of Appeals! =,R, No, 11949! 14 Nove#$er 100%! %4 SCRA 4,
http://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/2000/sept2000/142392.HTMhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/1996/nov1996/121545.htm


5/5

dated April 1! """ is R&V&RS&D and S&T ASID&, The Social Securit'S'ste# is ordered to pa' petitioner A>ucena Salali#a(s clai# for death $enefitsunder the plo'ees( Co#pensation Act,

SO OR!ERE!.

Panganiban, (Acting Chairman), Carpio, andAcuna, !!"! concur"#avide, !r", C"!", (Chairman),on official leave,

Documents

Salalima v. ECC & SSS, GR No. 146360, May 20, 2004