ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137423. June 9, 1999]

ALFREDO ANGELES vs. GSIS

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 9, 1999.

G.R. No. 137423 (Alfredo Angeles vs. Government Service Insurance System [PNP].)

Petitioner assails the action of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the employees Compensation Commission which in turn affirmed the denial by the Government insurance System (GSIS) declaring that petitioner's ailment is not compensable under P.D. No. 626.

Petitioner entered the police force as a Patrolman on January 4, 1971 and was absorbed into the Philippine National Police on January 2, 1991.

On November 29, 1995, petitioner was admitted at the Medical City General Hospital due to blurring of vision and headache which were later diagnosed to be caused by a supracellar tumor (transitional meningioma). Petitioner underwent surgical craniotomy.

After discharge from confinement, petitioner underwent psychiatric evaluation and was found to have developed mental disorder and was declared unfit to continue in the performance of his duties.

On July 1, 1997, having completed more than twenty five years of active service, petitioner opted to retire from active service at the age of 52. Thereafter, he filed with the GSIS a claim for compensation benefits, alleging that his ailment is compensable. However, the same was denied.

Upon re-evaluation, the ECC affirmed and that decision was later sustained by the Court of Appeals.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the three bodies charged with the task of evaluating petitioner's claim, for verily, their decisions are based on Section 1(b) Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation which clearly defines when an ailment is considered compensable, thus:

Section 1. (a) x x x;

(b) For the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of these Rule with the conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease in increased by the working condition.

Meningioma, the ailment suffered by petitioner is not listed as an occupational disease, hence, petitioner must show through substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the nature of his work or working condition which petitioner ailed to do.

This Court has ruled that to establish compensability under the second rule known as the theory of increased risk, it must be shown that an illness or fatal disease is caused by employment and the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions (naval vs. ECC, 199 SCRA 388 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE