SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139455. March 28, 2003.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by EMPLOYEES'

COMPENSATION COMMISSION , petitioner, vs . PEDRO MARIANO ,
respondent.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Public Attorney's Office for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent was an employee of the LGP Printing Press whose service was abruptly
ended when he could no longer perform any work due to a heart ailment. He led a claim
for employee's compensation bene t with the Social Security System (SSS), but the latter
denied the same on the ground that there was no causal connection between his ailment
and his job as lm developer. The SSS forwarded the record of respondent's case to the
Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC). The ECC, through its Executive Director,
dismissed respondent's claim (1) for respondent's failure to establish a causal connection
between Parkinson's Disease and the working conditions at the printing press; and (2) for
respondent's failure to adduce su cient evidence to establish that his hypertension had
caused impairment of any of his body organs, which in turn could permanently prevent him
from engaging in a gainful occupation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the ECC. Hence, this petition.
In denying the petition, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court did not err
in nding that respondent has substantially proved his claim to compensability. First, while
it is true that Parkinson's disease is not included in the list of compensable diseases under
the law then prevailing, it was found by the CA that the conditions prevailing at the
company largely led to the progression of the ailment. The respondent's functions entailed
constant exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals. As the ECC itself admitted in its
judgment, the exposure to these toxic substances is among the possible causes of this
disease. Where it was established that the claimant's ailment occurred during and in the
course of his employment, it must be presumed that the nature of the claimant's
employment is the cause of the disease. Second, even if the Court has to assume that
Parkinson's disease is not compensable, there can be no question that Essential
Hypertension is a compensable illness, following the ruling in the case of Government
Service Insurance System v. Gabriel , that hypertension and heart ailments are
compensable illnesses. Given the nature of his assigned job and the printing business, with
its tight deadlines entailing large amounts of rush work, indeed, the emotional and physical
stress of respondent's work at the printing press caused, and then exacerbated, his
hypertension.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES;

GOVERNED BY THE LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE CLAIMANT CONTRACTED HIS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ILLNESS; CASE AT BAR. — Workmen's Compensation cases are governed by the law in
force at the time the claimant contracted his illness. In the instant case, the applicable rule
is Section 1 (b), Rule III, of the Rules Implementing P.D. No. 626. Under said Rule, for the
sickness to be compensable, the same must be an "occupational disease" included in the
list provided, with the conditions set therein satis ed; otherwise, the claimant must show
proof that the risk of contracting it is increased by the working conditions. What kind and
quantum of evidence would constitute an adequate basis for a reasonable man (not
necessarily a medical scientist) to reach one or the other conclusion, can obviously be
determined only on a case-to-case basis.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT CLAIMANT'S AILMENT
OCCURRED DURING AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, IT MUST BE PRESUMED
THAT THE NATURE OF CLAIMANT'S EMPLOYMENT IS THE CAUSE OF THE DISEASE;
CASE AT BAR. — [A]s to Parkinson's disease, while it is true that this disease is not
included in the list of compensable diseases under the law then prevailing, it was found by
the Court of Appeals that the conditions prevailing at LGP largely led to the progression of
the ailment. The respondent's functions entailed constant exposure to hazardous or toxic
chemicals such as carbon disulfate, carbon monoxide, or manganese. As the ECC itself
admitted in its judgment, the exposure to these toxic substances is among the possible
causes of this disease. Where it was established that the claimant's ailment occurred
during and in the course of his employment, it must be presumed that the nature of the
claimant's employment is the cause of the disease.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; HYPERTENSION IS A COMPENSABLE ILLNESS; CASE AT BAR. —
[T]here can be no question that Essential Hypertension is a compensable illness, following
our ruling in Government Service Insurance System v. Gabriel , that hypertension and heart
ailments are compensable illnesses. The respondent herein was diagnosed to have
developed Incomplete Right Bundle Branch Block, a disease caused by a delay in the
depolarization of the right ventricle. . . . In upholding respondent Mariano's claim, the Court
of Appeals found that among the various jobs the respondent performed were those of a
machine operator, paper cutter, monotype composer, and later as supervisor, most of
which are physical and stressful in character. In established cases of Essential
Hypertension, the blood pressure uctuates widely in response to emotional, stress and
physical activity. Given the nature of his assigned job and the printing business, with its
tight deadlines entailing large amounts of rush work, indeed the emotional and physical
stress of respondent's work at the printing press caused, and then exacerbated, his
hypertension. On this score, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in liberally
construing the rules implementing P.D. No. 626. In matters of labor and social legislation,
it is well established that doubts in the interpretation and application of the law are
resolved liberally in favor of the worker and strictly against the employer.aSTcCE

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATION AS TO THE NATURE OF

CLAIMANT'S DISABILITY NORMALLY DESERVES FULL CREDENCE. — In Ijares v. Court of
Appeals, which involved a claim for disability bene ts due to hypertension, this Court gave
probative value to the medical ndings of the examining physician. A doctor's certi cation
as to the nature of the claimant's disability normally deserves full credence. No medical
practitioner will, in the normal course of things, issue certi cations indiscriminately,
considering the doctor's awareness of the serious and far-reaching effects that a false
certi cation would have on a claim led with a government agency and of its implications
upon his own interests as a professional.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

QUISUMBING , J : p

Subject of this petition for review on certiorari is the decision, 1 dated July 26, 1999,
of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. UDK-2898. It reversed the decision of the
Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC), dated October 23, 1998, in ECC Case No.
MS-9677-498, which had a rmed the ruling of the Social Security System (SSS) denying
herein respondent Pedro Mariano's claim for compensation bene ts under Presidential
Decree No. 626. 2
The pertinent facts, as summarized by the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), are
as follows:
For an eleven-year period starting January 1983, respondent Pedro Mariano was an
employee of LGP Printing Press. During his employment, Mariano worked in various
capacities, including that of a machine operator, paper cutter, monotype composer, lm
developer, and supervisor of the printing press. 3
Sometime in February 1994, Mariano's service abruptly ended when he could no
longer perform any work due to a heart ailment. An electrocardiograph test revealed that
he was suffering from "Incomplete Right Bundle Branch Block." 4
Mariano led a claim for employee's compensation bene t with the SSS. In its
medical evaluation dated April 15, 1997, SSS denied his claim on the ground that there was
no causal connection between his ailment and his job as film developer. 5
On July 1, 1997, the SSS forwarded the record of respondent's case to the ECC. In a
letter dated September 12, 1997, the ECC remanded respondent's case to the SSS for
reception of additional documentary evidence.
On February 9, 1998, the SSS directed respondent to submit the following: (1)
complete clinical abstract if he was con ned; and (2) records of consultation due to
hypertension. 6
Meanwhile, respondent had consulted Dr. Rogelio Mariano, whose diagnosis
showed he was suffering from Parkinson's disease and hypertension, as per the medical
certificate dated April 20, 1998. 7
The SSS once again submitted respondent's case records to the ECC for review.
On October 23, 1998, the ECC, through Executive Director Teo lo E. Hebron,
dismissed respondent's claim. Hebron ruled that the respondent had failed to establish a
causal connection between Parkinson's Disease and the working conditions at the printing
press. 8 On respondent's claim for compensation for Essential Hypertension, the ECC
found that respondent had failed to adduce su cient evidence to establish that his
ailment had caused impairment of any of his body organs, which in turn could permanently
prevent him from engaging in a gainful occupation.
Aggrieved, respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
UDK-2898.
On July 26, 1999, the appellate court rendered a judgment reversing the decision of
the ECC, decreeing as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, respondents Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC)
and Social Security System (SSS) are ordered to pay petitioner's claim for
compensation benefits under P.D. 626. 9

In holding for the respondent, the Court of Appeals found that the nature of
petitioner's work at LGP resulted in his exposure to various toxic chemicals, which is a
possible cause of Parkinson's Disease. As to his hypertension, the appellate court ruled
that the respondent's duties as machine operator and paper cutter involved physical
pressure and restlessness, since he was required to meet urgent deadlines for rush print
orders. This in turn caused respondent to suffer from stress and anxiety. In sum, the
appellate court held that respondent had substantially established the connection between
the cause of his ailments and the nature of his work.
Hence, the instant petition, anchored on the following assignment of errors:
I.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED IS NOT

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, PARTICULARLY SECTION 1 (B), RULE III OF THE
RULES IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II, BOOK IV OF THE LABOR
CODE.

II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE EXISTS A CAUSAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN RESPONDENT'S PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND THE
WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE PRINTING PRESS. 1 0

The sole issue for our resolution is: Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the ECC
decision and in ordering petitioner to pay respondent his claim for compensation benefits?
For the petitioner, the OSG contends that the rule implementing P.D. No. 626 does
not list Parkinson's Disease as an occupational ailment, hence, it is not compensable. The
OSG takes the view that the evidence on record does not establish that the risk of
contracting said ailment was increased by the nature of respondent's work. Thus, said the
OSG, it was error for the Court of Appeals to declare the ailment compensable.
Additionally, the OSG avers that private respondent failed to submit the documents that
the ECC required to support his claim for disability benefits.
Respondent counters that the nature of his functions at LGP clearly brought about
the onset of Parkinson's Disease. Moreover, assuming arguendo, that Parkinson's Disease
is non-compensable, his other ailment — Essential Hypertension — is covered by P.D. No.
626. He contends that the risk of contracting Essential Hypertension was increased by his
job at LGP. 1 1
Workmen's Compensation cases are governed by the law in force at the time the
claimant contracted his illness. 1 2 In the instant case, the applicable rule is Section 1 (b), 1 3
Rule III, of the Rules Implementing P.D. No. 626. Under said Rule, for the sickness to be
compensable, the same must be an "occupational disease" included in the list provided,
with the conditions set therein satis ed; otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the
risk of contracting it is increased by the working conditions. 1 4 What kind and quantum of
evidence would constitute an adequate basis for a reasonable man (not necessarily a
medical scientist) to reach one or the other conclusion, can obviously be determined only
on a case-to-case basis. 1 5 For reasons herein elaborated, we agree with the appellate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court that respondent Pedro Mariano has substantially proved his claim to compensability.
First, as to Parkinson's disease, while it is true that this disease is not included in the
list of compensable diseases under the law then prevailing, it was found by the Court of
Appeals that the conditions prevailing at LGP largely led to the progression of the ailment.
The respondent's functions entailed constant exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals
such as carbon disulfate, carbon monoxide, or manganese. As the ECC itself admitted in
its judgment, the exposure to these toxic substances is among the possible causes of this
disease. 1 6 Where it was established that the claimant's ailment occurred during and in the
course of his employment, it must be presumed that the nature of the claimant's
employment is the cause of the disease. 1 7
Second, even if we were to assume that Parkinson's Disease is not compensable,
there can be no question that Essential Hypertension is a compensable illness, following
our ruling in Government Service Insurance System v. Gabriel , 1 8 that hypertension and
heart ailments are compensable illnesses. The respondent herein was diagnosed to have
developed Incomplete Right Bundle Branch Block, 1 9 a disease caused by a delay in the
depolarization of the right ventricle. 2 0 Right Bundle Branch Block is an intraventricular
conduction defect common in individuals with otherwise normal hearts as well as in many
diseased processes, including ischemic heart disease, in ammatory disease, in ltrative
disease, cardiomyopathy, and postcardiotomy. 2 1 We note that respondent was also
diagnosed as having hypertension and a medical certification was issued to that effect.
In Ijares v. Court of Appeals , 2 2 which involved a claim for disability bene ts due to
hypertension, this Court gave probative value to the medical ndings of the examining
physician. A doctor's certi cation as to the nature of the claimant's disability normally
deserves full credence. No medical practitioner will, in the normal course of things, issue
certi cations indiscriminately, considering the doctor's awareness of the serious and far-
reaching effects that a false certi cation would have on a claim led with a government
agency and of its implications upon his own interests as a professional. 2 3
In upholding respondent Mariano's claim, the Court of Appeals found that among
the various jobs the respondent performed were those of a machine operator, paper
cutter, monotype composer, 2 4 and later as supervisor, most of which are physical and
stressful in character. In established cases of Essential Hypertension, the blood pressure
uctuates widely in response to emotional stress and physical activity. 2 5 Given the nature
of his assigned job and the printing business, with its tight deadlines entailing large
amounts of rush work, indeed the emotional and physical stress of respondent's work at
the printing press caused, and then exacerbated, his hypertension. On this score, we hold
that the Court of Appeals did not err in liberally construing the rules implementing P.D. No.
626. In matters of labor and social legislation, it is well established that doubts in the
interpretation and application of the law are resolved liberally in favor of the worker and
strictly against the employer.
While the SSS and ECC may be commended for their vigilance against sustaining
unjusti ed claims that would only drain funds meant for deserving disabled employees,
respondent Mariano's case does not fall in that class. Said agencies ought to realize, in our
view, that strict interpretation of the rules should not result in the denial of assistance to
those in need and quali ed therefor. Workers whose capabilities have been diminished, if
not completely impaired, as a consequence of their service, ought to be given bene ts they
deserve under the law. Compassion for them is not a dole-out, but a right. 2 6
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Appeals, dated July 26, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. UDK-2898 is AFFIRMED. HEScID

No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, with Associate Justices Eubulo G.

Verzola and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring. Rollo, pp. 58-62.
2. Labor Code, Book IV, Title II.
3. CA Rollo, p. 25.
4. Id. at 45.
5. Rollo, pp. 10-11.
6. Id. at 11.
7. CA Rollo, p. 35.
8. Rollo, p. 11.
9. Id. at 62.
10. Id. at 13.
11. Id. at 73.
12. Loot v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 86994, 30 June 1993, 224
SCRA 54, 58.
13. SECTION 1. Grounds. — . . .
(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
Rules with the conditions set therein satisfied, otherwise, proof must be shown that the
risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions.
14. Government Service Insurance System v. CA, G.R. No. 126352, 7 September 2001, 364
SCRA 624, 629.
15. Riño v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 132558, 9 May 2000, 331
SCRA 596, 602-603, citing Sante v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No.
84415, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 557, 565.
16. CA Rollo, p. 40.
17. Roldan v. Republic, G.R. No. 45618, 15 February 1990, 182 SCRA 230, 236. See also
Diopenes v. GSIS , G.R. No. 96844, 23 January 1992, 205 SCRA 331, 334.
18. G.R. No. 130379, 21 June 1999, 308 SCRA 705, 713.
19. CA Rollo, p. 45.

20. Right Bundle Branch Blocks (RBBB)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 <http://user.gru.net/clawrence/vccl/chpt5/rbbb.htm>, 1/15/03.

21. L. TIERNEY, JR. ET. AL (EDS.) CURRENT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT, 400
(38th International Ed., 1999).

22. G.R. No. 105854, 26 August 1999, 313 SCRA 141.

23. Id. at 151-152.
24. CA Rollo, p. 25.
25. L. TIERNEY, JR. ET. AL., loc. cit. 431.
26. Diopenes v. GSIS, supra at 335-336.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com