G.R. No. L-68648 – 144 SCRA 421 – Labor Law – Social Legislation – Increased Risk Theory
From 1976 to 1980, Martiniano Sarmiento had been working as a casual laborer in the Bureau of Agricultural Extension (BAE). Three years after his retirement, he filed a claim for disability compensation from the GSIS. He claimed that he developed acute follicular pharyngitis with hypertrophic rhinitis because of the activities he had been doing as a worker in the BAE. He claimed that his constant exposure to plants in the BAE gave him the illness. These plants, he said, were treated with pesticides and other chemicals, which also came into contact with him. The GSIS denied Sarmiento’s claim as it ruled that his disease was not occupational.
Sarmiento then appealed to the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC). The ECC affirmed the denial made by the GSIS as it ruled that Sarmiento’s illness was not among those compensable diseases listed by the ECC nor was it proven that his illness was caused by his employment in the BAE and that the risk of contracting the same was increased by the working conditions. Sarmiento failed to show a direct causal connection between his illness and his employment with the BAE.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sarmiento is entitled to the benefit.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, if the illness is not listed by the ECC as a compensable illness, the claimant must show proof that he contracted the illness due to his employment or that the risk of contracting such illness was increased by his employment. The quantum of proof needed is not necessarily a direct causal proof. Substantial evidence is sufficient – what the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. In short, 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.
In this case, Sarmiento was able to present proof that he was constantly exposed to plant dusts, and chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. These are respiratory irritants. His illness is described as the “permanent enlargement or thickening” of the nasal mucous membranes which is part of the respiratory system. That being, it can even be said that this is already a direct proof of the causal connection between his employment and his illness.
The SC also emphasized that this interpretation is very much in line with the State’s policy of maximum protection to labor and that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.
