ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 141171.September 26, 2001]

VIERNES vs. GSIS et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 26 2001.

G.R. No. 141171 (Norma B. Viernes vs. Government Service Insurance Systems, Department of National Defense, and Employees Compensation Commission.)

Melvin B. Viernes, husband of petitioner Norma B. Viernes, joined the Department of National Defense (DND) as Clerk Aide on August 18, 1969. He was promoted several times until he became Civilian Defense Officer II on July 1, 1989.

On September 16, 1996, he was admitted and confined at the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center for fever, loss of appetite and body weakness. A chest x-ray taken of him on September 19, 1996 revealed that he was suffering from pleural effusion secondary to pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). On September 20, 1996, he was discharged from the hospital.

On November 18, 1996, he was brought to the United Doctors Medical Center because of progressive icteresia, abdominal enlargement, pedal edema and anorexia. His subsequent work-up revealed that he was suffering from liver cirrhosis, hepatic encephalopathy and PTB. On November 29, 1996, he died despite medical intervention. The cause of death indicated was liver cirrhosis.

His wife, herein petitioner, filed a claim for death compensation benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The GSIS denied petitioner's claim on the ground that liver cirrhosis is not a compensable occupational disease under P.D. 626, as amended. A reconsideration of the decision was likewise denied.

Petitioner filed an appeal with the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC). On November 6, 1998, ECC rendered a decision sustaining the GSIS in that liver cirrhosis is not an occupational disease. However, petitioner was granted partial disability benefit on the ground that the deceased contracted PTB, an occupational disease, during his employment. The decretal portion of the ECC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the case is remanded to the System for computation and payment of permanent partial disability benefit of 23 months due the appellant.

SO ORDERED. ¹ Rollo, p. 29.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for review of the ECC decision to the Court of Appeals.

������������ On November, 10, 1999, the appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit reasoning that liver cirrhosis is not one of those included in the list of compensable occupational diseases under the Employees' Compensation Law and that petitioner failed to satisfactorily discharge of the burden of proof to show that the deceased's illness was work-related or that the risk of contracting the same was increased by his working conditions as Civilian Defense Officer II in the DND. A motion for reconsideration of said decision was denied on December 20, 1999.

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari raising this sole assignment of error:

The GSIS, ECC and the Court of Appeals erred in deciding that only occupational diseases can be compensated under the "Employees,' Compensation and State Insurance Fund" (Pres. Decree No. 626, as Amended), when the law itself was amended to include those that are not considered as occupational diseases (ECC Resolution No. 432, July 20, 1977), such as heart diseases, brain hemorrhage, malaria, schistosomiasis, pneumonia, hernia, bronchial asthma, and contrary to the Decision stating that the etiology of liver cirrhosis is caused by only chronic alcoholism, when authoritative and accepted sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica consider that liver cirrhosis is acquired by other causes not only chronic alcoholism, thus should be legally declared to be occupationally compensated and work-related as in the death of petitioner's husband. ² Id., at 10.

The primary aim of the Employees' Compensation Program is to help workers and their dependents promptly "receive meaningful and adequate income benefits, medical or related services and rehabilitation services in the event of work-related injury, sickness, disability or death. Under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, for sickness and the resulting death of an employee to be compensable, the claimant must show either (a) that it is a result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the amended Rules on Employees' Compensation with the conditions set therein satisfied; or (b) that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. ³ Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 491 (1995); Corporal v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 235 SCRA 165 (1994); Santos v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 221 SCRA 182 (1993).The law as it now stands, therefore, requires the claimant to prove a positive thing - that the illness was caused by employment and the risk of contracting is increased by the working conditions.

In the case at bar, there is no question that cirrhosis is not among the occupational diseases or illnesses listed under Annex "A" of the Employees' Compensation Law. Petitioner likewise failed to prove that she can be compensated for the death of her husband under the theory of increased risk. What she seemed to have prayed for here is for the Court to amend the law and include (liver) cirrhosis as an occupational disease and to make a declaration that (liver) cirrhosis is not only caused by chronic alcoholism.

We cannot do both. A law may be amended, modified, abolished or repealed by an act of Congress as the same has been vested upon it by the Constitution. Courts are not empowered to do the same. As to the second point raised, it appears that petitioner did not present any evidence to establish her claim that cirrhosis is not caused only by chronic alcoholism. The enumerated types of cirrhosis contained in the petition, albeit raised for the first time, seems to us to be more of an academic assertion rather than a valid argument in support of a ground for granting this petition. It would have been prudent and beneficial for herein petitioner to have alleged and established that cirrhosis, although not one among those listed as compensable, may be considered as covered under the law, on the ground that the nature of the work of her husband exposed him to the risk of contracting the same. This she failed to do. In fact, while a reading of the types of cirrhosis enumerated in the petition would tend to show that it could be caused by viral infection or toxins, the nature of the deceased's work precluded its application in this case. Assuming arguendo that cirrhosis could be contracted in the workplace by exposure to toxins, it should be stressed here that the deceased was working in a records office, not a laboratory where he could be exposed to harmful chemicals. Hence, while we sympathize with the family of the deceased, the Court has no choice but to limit the benefits due them to the equivalent of 23 months disability benefit.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE