BUNAO V.

SS
Facts: Artus Bunao (husband of the petitioner) works as an acting 2 nd marine
engineer for Ocean Tanker Corporation from 1995 to 1999.
In 1999 Artus was rushed to a hospital and he was diagnosed to have Renal
Cell Cancer. The same was reported to SSS.
He was then again admitted after one month due to loose vowel movement
and body weakness.
After 15days Artus died due to renal cell cancer.
Petitioner ( wife of artus ) filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential
Decree No. 626, as amended, before the SSS. The SSS, however, denied the
claim on the ground that her husbands ailment, which caused his death, is
not included in the list of occupational diseases, and that the same has no
causal relationship with the nature of her husbands work.
Petitioner appealed to ECC, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the SSS
decision.
They filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, but the
same was dismissed for having been filed out of time.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: W/N Petitioner is entitled to compensation benefits under PD. 626.
Held: No, under the Labor Code, her husbands illness which eventually led to
his demise is not compensable.
Petitioner alleged that in the performance of her husbands duties as
2nd Marine Engineer, part of which reads:
6. Ensures the upkeep and maintenance of the Engine Room by
arranging, monitoring and controlling day to day engine
room maintenance activities in coordination with Chief
Engineer.
7.
Ensures the smooth operation of the vessel main and
auxiliary machinery.
8.
Transfers and/or fills up fuel oil and lube oil settling and dry
tanks, if necessary . . . .

the latter was exposed to leaded petrol and petroleum products that contain
various chemicals like hydrogen, benzene and lead which are health hazards
because of their carcinogenicity. She claims that most of these chemicals
precipitate kidney disease, kidney cancer and liver cancer.
Unfortunately, such bare allegations and vague excerpts on cancer do not
constitute such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion that there is indeed a causal relationship between
the illness of the deceased and his working conditions. Awards of
compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions. [13] The claimant
must prove a positive proposition.
There is no showing that the progression of the disease was brought about
largely by the conditions in Artuss job. Petitioner did not present medical
history, records or physicians report in order to substantiate her claim that
the working conditions on board the vessels M/T Palawan, M/T Guimaras and
M/T Buenavista increased the risk of contracting renal cell cancer.
Certainly, cancer is a disease that strikes people in general. The nature of a
persons employment appears to have no relevance. Cancer can strike a lowly
paid laborer or a highly paid executive or one who works on land, in water, or
in the deep bowels of the earth. It makes no difference whether the victim is
employed or unemployed, a white collar employee or a blue collar worker, a
housekeeper, an urban dweller or a resident of a rural area.

GSIS v. Besitan
G.R.
No.

178901: November

GOVERNMENT SERVICE
BESITAN,

INSURANCE

DEL

SYSTEM,

23,
Petitioner,

v.

2011
MANUEL P.
Respondent.

CASTILLO,

J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner

GSIS

is

social

insurance

institution

charged

with

the

management and administration of the trust fund of the Employees

Compensation Commission (ECC) for government officials and employees.
Respondent Besitan was employed by the Central Bank of the Philippines on
January 21, 1976 as a Bank Examiner. Subsequently, he was promoted as
Bank
Officer
II
and
eventually
as
Bank
Officer
III.
In October 2005, Besitan was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease
secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis and thus, had to undergo a kidney
transplant at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI), for which he
incurred
medical
expenses
amounting
to
P817,455.40.
Believing that his working condition increased his risk of contracting the
disease, Besitan filed with the GSIS a claim for compensation benefits under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 626, as amended. The GSIS, however, denied
the claim. The GSIS Decision was affirmed by the Employees Compensation
Commission
but
reversed
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
GSIS contends that Besitans ailment is not an occupational disease; hence, it
is incumbent upon him to prove that the risk of contracting the said disease
was increased by his employment and working condition. And since he failed
to show that there is a causal relationship between his employment and his
ailment, he cannot claim compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as
amended.
Besitan admits that his ailment is not listed as an occupational disease under
PD No. 626, as amended. He, however, insists that he was able to prove by
substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the disease was increased
by his working condition. He maintains that in claiming compensation
benefits, certainty is not required, only probability. He points out that he was
in good health when he was employed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in
1976 and that it was only in 2004 that he contracted his kidney ailment.
ISSUE:
I. Whether Besitan is entitled to compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as
amended
HELD:
Section 1, Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation
provides that for the sickness or resulting disability or death to be
compensable,
the
claimant
must
prove
either
(1)
that
the employee's sickness was the result of an occupational disease listed
under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, or (2)
that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working

conditions.
Under the increased risk theory, there must be a reasonable proof that the
employees working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, or
that there is a connection between his work and the cause of the disease.
Only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation,
however, is required to establish compensability of a non-occupational
disease. Probability, and not certainty, is the yardstick in compensation
proceedings; thus, any doubt should be interpreted in favor of the employees
for whom social legislations, like PD No. 626, were enacted.
Moreover, direct and clear evidence, is not necessary to prove a claim. Strict
rules of evidence do not apply as PD No. 626 only requires substantial
evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate
to
support
a
conclusion."
In this case, since Besitans ailment, End Stage Renal Disease secondary to
Chronic Glomerulonephritis is not among those listed under Annex "A," of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, he needs to show by
substantial evidence that his risk of contracting the disease was increased by
his
working
condition.
After a careful study of the instant case, we find that Besitan has sufficiently
proved that his working condition increased his risk of contracting
Glomerulonephritis, which according to GSIS may be caused by bacterial,
viral, and parasitic infection (i.e. Typhoid fever, Syphilis, Leptospirosis,
Toxoplasmosis, Varicella, Mumps, Measles, Schistosomiasis, Hepatitis B and C
infection, etc.).