G.R. No.

193500

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioners

Facts:

Tañedo has been a public servant since March 1, 1976. Before his retirement in December 2007, he held
the position of records officer at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). His duties and responsibilities included
encoding and printing treasury reconciliation statements, supporting schedules and endorsement letters of funds,
delivering of the same, and performing other functions designated by the division chief.

On December 1, 2003, he was examined at the National Kidney Institute where he was found to have
varicosities or varicose veins in his legs. Convinced that his ailment supervened by reason and in the course of his
employment with the BIR, he filed a claim before the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for
compensation benefits under P.D. No. 626. However, the same was denied by the GSIS on the ground that
varicosities is not considered an occupational disease under P.D. No. 626.

Issue:

Whether or not Tañedo's medical condition is compensable under the law.

Ruling:

For sickness or death of an employee to be compensable, the claimant must show either: (1) that it is a
result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the AREC with the conditions set therein satisfied; or (2)
if not so listed, that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions.

The Court of Appeals was correct in stating that "what the law requires is reasonable work-connection, not
direct causal relation" and that "the degree of proof required under Presidential Decree No. 626 is merely substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Tañedo failed to provide substantial evidence to prove that his medical condition was caused by his work at
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). He was unable to present any competent medical history, records or a
physician's report that would objectively demonstrate that his claim of a reasonable connection between his work
and his medical ailment has substantial basis. All that can be found on record are (a) the hospitalization claim for
payment, and (b) the radiology consultation report that both merely describe his medical condition of "stasis
dermatitis" or "superficial varicosities" but with no medical assessment as to the cause thereof.

Tañedo's evidence merely point to a possibility that there is a nexus between his work and his ailment which
cannot be deemed adequate basis to grant workmen's compensation claims.
G.R. No. 187474               February 06, 2013

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner,

Facts:

Bernardo was employed for almost twenty-nine (29) years by the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) in Makati City. He worked at the MMDA as laborer, Metro Aide and Metro Aide I.

Sometime in February 2004, Bernardo was diagnosed with Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB) and Community
Acquired Pneumonia (CAP). He was confined at the Ospital ng Makati and was discharged six days after with the
following diagnosis: Acute Diffuse Anterolateral Wall Myocardial Infraction, Killips IV-1, CAP High Risk, PTB III and
Diabetes Mellitus Type 2.

In 2005, Bernardo was found dead at the basement of the MMDA building. His body was brought to the
Southern Police District Crime Laboratory in Makati City for an autopsy. Medico-Legal Officer Ma. Cristina B. Freyra
performed the autopsy and concluded that Bernardo died of Myocardial Infarction, old and recent.7 Bernardo’s
widow, Marilou, subsequently filed a claim for death benefits with the Govenment Service Insurance System (GSIS).

The GSIS denied the claim for death benefits on the ground that myocardial infarction, the cause of
Bernardo’s death, was directly related to diabetes which is not considered a work-connected illness. That its
complications, such as myocardial infarction, are not work-related.

Issue:

Whether or not Bernardo’s illness was work-connected and/or the risk of contracting the illness was
increased by the nature of his work.

Ruling:

The Court disagree with the position GSIS. The conclusions of the two agencies totally disregarded the
stressful and strenuous conditions under which Bernardo toiled for almost 29 long years as a laborer and as a metro
aide. By so doing, they closed the door to other influences that caused or contributed to Bernardo’s fatal heart
problem – an ailment aggravated with the passage of time by the risks present in the difficult working conditions that
Bernardo had to bear from day to day in his employment.

Based on the evidence on record, the Court found that the nature of Bernardo’s duties and the conditions
under which he worked were such as to eventually cause the onset of his myocardial infarction. The stresses, the
strain, and the exposure to street pollution and to the elements that Bernardo had to bear for almost 29 years are all
too real to be ignored. They cannot but lead to a deterioration of health particularly with the contributing factors of
diabetes and pulmonary disease.
GR No. 153810, Aug 12, 2015

WINSTON R. GARCIA v. ANGELITA TOLENTINO

Facts:

Following the enactment of RA 8291 by the Congress, Tolentino and others, who are all contractual
employees of the various projects and programs within and under the control and supervision of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), wrote the GSIS to inquire about their standing, since, prior to RA
8291, they were not under compulsory GSIS coverage.

The GSIS, in a letter, advised that while casual and contractual employees paid from the regular lump-sum
appropriation are covered under RA 8291, contractual employees who were hired co-terminus with projects and are
receiving additional 20% pay were not.

The GSIS and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Joint Circular No. 99-3 ("JC No.
99-3") which set forth the guidelines in the payment of the government statutory expenditures on personal services
of contractual employees. Said joint circular provided that the required government share of premiums on RLIP,
ECIP, MEDICARE and PAG-IBIG of contractual personnel shall be paid out of the 20% premium given them. And
that the employee's share for RLIP, MEDICARE and PAG-IBIG shall be paid by the individual contractual
employees.

The DENR, through a Memorandum, accordingly informed its Project/Program Directors that deductions
from the premium pay shall be "reflected in the payroll starting October 1999 to include arrearages for the months of
January to September 1999."

Tolentino et al., again, wrote to the GSIS and the DENR requesting the deferment of the deduction of the
monthly GSIS contributions pending resolution of the issue regarding their membership coverage. But before the
concerned government agencies could act on their letters, Tolentino and others, filed before the Court wherein they
argued that "the GSIS and the DBM committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the government's share on
GSIS contributions to be paid out of the 20% premium on the monthly salary of contractual employees."

Issue:

Whether or not the GSIS is guilty of forum-shopping.

Ruling:

The commonality of interests among the DBM, the GSIS and the DENR cannot be denied. The pleadings
filed from the inception of the case will show that they have essentially the same arguments and defenses and seek
the same reliefs.

More, in terms of the issuance of JC No. 99-3, these agencies have equal stakes should the challenged
circular be declared invalid. Without a doubt, the different modes of appeal taken by the GSIS and the DBM will, in
the process, create the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issue.
Indeed, a final decision in one would constitute res judicata in the other.
 Forum-shopping or the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum,
of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum (other than by appeal or the special civil action
of certiorari), or the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the san1e cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition, has been characterized as an act of
malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the Courts and abusing their processes. It constitutes
improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice.