Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 190438 : March 24, 2010] RENATO O. DASIG, PETITIONER VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.), RESPONDENT:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 March 2010.

G.R. No. 190438 - RENATO O. DASIG, petitioner -versus- SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (San Miguel Brewery, Inc.), respondent

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 1, 2010, filed by petitioner Renato Dasig to set aside our Resolution of February 3, 2010, affirming the decision of August 26, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107488, denying the petitioner's claim for permanent partial disability. The CA found the petitioner's failure to present a physician's report fatal to his case. It also ruled that the petitioner's work as forklift operator and his working conditions were not sufficiently stressful to precipitate cardiac injury.

In our February 3, 2010 Resolution,^[1] we affirmed the CA Decision on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between the illness for which he sought compensation (Coronary Disease-Unstable Angina and Diabetes Mellitus) and the conditions of his work. This causal connection must be proven in any claims arising from Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation which governs the grant of disability benefits for employees suffering from heart diseases. Annex "A" provides:

1.    If  the  heart  disease  was  known  to  have  been  present  during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his work;

2.    The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac insult to constitute causal relationship;

3.    A person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a casual relationship.

The petitioner reiterates the arguments that: (1) his illness was caused by the vehicle exhaust he inhaled while working as a forklift operator; (2) forklift operators, like truck drivers, experience more health problems, such as hypertension and other heart ailments, compared to clerical employees; and (3) the alternating of work shift schedules that he underwent during his employment increased his risks for heart disease.^[2] He further contends that his failure to present a physician's report establishing the work-connection of his disease cannot be taken against him. ^[3] In addition, he asserts that the ECC had the duty to require the employer to furnish documents that would establish the work-connection of his illness.^[4]

We find no reversible errors to merit reconsideration.

Apart from the petitioner's allegations, the records do not show evidence of his working conditions, particularly his duties and responsibilities, his work schedule or any other work-related factors that may have precipitated his illness. What the records show are the findings of the examining physician from St. Luke's Medical Center pointing to other causes for his illness - i.e., smoking, diabetes mellitus, obesity, family history of heart disease and advancing age.^[5] Consequently, his failure to refute these medical findings with the expert opinion of another physician is fatal to his cause.

Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, the ECC cannot be blamed for his failure to present adequate evidence to support his claim. Records show that the petitioner had not made any effort to have the ECC compel his employer to produce the evidence required. Moreover, the petitioner presented his case before the SSS, the ECC, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, and in all four instances stubbornly insisted on the sufficiency of his evidence and did not make any effort to present proof of his allegations. The parties have the duty to plead their cases and provide the tribunals with sufficient proof, and cannot reasonably shift this duty to the tribunals tasked to examine their evidence.

Finally, the findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies with expertise on matters under their jurisdiction are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.^[6] In this case, no grave abuse of discretion exists as the SSS and ECC conclusions are properly supported by the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of March 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 232-234.

^[2]  Id at 236-238.

^[3] Id. at 238.

^[4] Ibid

^[5] Id. at 79 and 107.