SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 187950, January 11, 2017
CRISTINA BARSOLO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Cristina Barsolo, assailing the Decision2 dated November 19, 2008 and the Resolution3 dated May 19, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102469.
Cristina Barsolo's (Cristina) deceased husband, Manuel M. Barsolo (Manuel), "was employed as a seaman by various companies from 1988 to 2002."4 From July 2, 2002 to December 6, 2002, Manuel served as a Riding Gang/Able Seaman onboard MT Polaris Star with Vela International Marine Ltd., (Vela).5 Vela was his last employer before he died in 2006.6
After his separation from employment with Vela, Manuel was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and osteoarthritis.7 He was examined and treated at the Philippine Heart Center as an outpatient from April 2, 2003 to October 22, 2004.8 When he died on September 24, 2006, the autopsy report listed myocardial infarction as his cause of death.9
Believing that the cause of Manuel's death was work-related, Cristina filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, with the Social Security System.10 The Social Security System, on June 27, 2007, denied her claim on the ground that there was no longer an employer-employee relationship at the time of Manuel's death and that "[h]is being a smoker increased his risk of contracting the illness."11
Cristina appealed her case to the Employees' Compensation Commission (Commission), which, in a Decision12 dated December 17, 2007, denied the appeal for lack of merit.13 According to the Commission:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Commission held that Cristina was unable to establish that her husband's case fell under any of the above circumstances.15
- Since Myocardial Infarction (Cardiovascular Disease) is listed as an occupational disease under P.D. 626 as amended, [Cristina] is bound to comply with all the conditions required [under Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employee's Compensation] to warrant the grant of benefits
- If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his/her work
- The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac insult to constitute causal relationship;chanrobleslaw
- If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.14
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.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe pertinent portions of Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation read:
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:It is worthy to note that this Court has already ruled on the compensability of Myocardial Infarction as an occupational disease. Rañises v. Employees Compensation Commission,32 is instructive:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) The employee's work must involve the risks described herein;chanrobleslaw
(2) The disease was contracted as a result of the employee's exposure to the described risks;chanrobleslaw
(3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;chanrobleslaw
(4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the employee.
....
The following diseases are considered as occupational when contracted under working conditions involving the risks described herein:
....
18. CARDIO-VASCULAR DISEASES. ** Any of the following conditions -
a. If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his/her work.
b. The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac assault to constitute causal relationship.
c. If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship. (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 1(h), Rule III of the ECC Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, now considers cardio-vascular disease as compensable occupational disease. Included in Annex "A" is cardio-vascular disease, which cover myocardial infarction. However, it may be considered as compensable occupational disease only when substantial evidence is adduced to prove any of the following conditions:In Rañises, we held that for myocardial infarction to be considered a compensable occupational disease, any of the three conditions must be proven by substantial evidence.34 Petitioner failed in this regard.
a) If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment there must be proof that an acute exacerbation clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reason of the nature of his work;chanrobleslaw
b) The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within twenty-four (24) hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac assault to constitute causal relationship.
c) If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before subjecting himself to strain of work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.33 (Emphasis supplied.)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2 Id. at 98-108. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal of the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 120-121. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal of the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 12.
5 Id. at 99.
6 Id. at 12.
7 Id. at 99-100.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 100.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 62.
12 Id. at 63-74.
13 Id. at 65.
14 Id. at 66.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 66.
18 Id. at 29-45.
19 Id. at 98-108.
20 Id. at 102.
21 Id. at 103.
22 Id. at 105.
23 Id. at 109-115.
24 Id. at 109.
25cralawred Id. at 120-121.
26 Id. at 15.
27 Id. at 17.
28Rollo, p. 17.
29 Id. at 56. This Medical Certificate was not considered by the Court of Appeals as it was not attached in the petition therein (rollo, p. 104).
30 Id. at 56.
31 Id. at 22.
32Rañises v. Employees Compensation Commission, 504 Phil. 340 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
33 Id. at 343.
34 Id. at 343-344.
35Rollo, p. 54.
36 Id. at 99.
37 Id. at 56.
38 Id. at 100.
39Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 955 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
40 Id. at 964.