Death benefits under the Labor Code, as amended, are awarded only when the cause of death is listed as an occupational disease by the Employees’ Compensation Commission, or when the claimant presents proof that the working conditions increased the risk of contracting the fatal disease.

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the June 30, 1997 Decision1 [Rollo, pp. 34-38.] of the Court of Appeals (CA)2 [Eighth Division. The Decision was written by J. Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with the concurrence of JJ Jaime M. Lantin (Division chairman) and Buenaventura J. Guerrero (member)] in CA-GR SP No. 41257. The dispositive portion of the challenged CA Decision reads:

The Decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed by the CA disposed as follows:

Petitioner also assails the January 29, 1998 Resolution5 [CA Rollo, p. 75.] of the appellate court denying reconsideration.

Virgilio T. Riño Sr., husband of herein petitioner, was employed by Allied Port Services Inc. as stevedore since July, 1982. His duties included: (1) handling of steel cargoes; (2) loading and unloading of silica sand; (3) handling, loading and unloading of lumber products; (4) supervising other stevedores; and (5) performing other related work.6 [Rollo, p. 21.]

On July 19, 1992, Virgilio Riño collapsed while working at the South Harbor, Manila. He was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) because of "melena, fever, chills and abdominal pains 8 days [prior to confinement] x x x." He died three days later. According to the Medical Certificate issued by Fe B. Bais, chief of the PGH Medical Records Division, the cause of death was "uremia [secondary] to chronic renal failure. Chronic glomerulonephritis. x x x"7 [CA rollo, p. 20.] Misspped

Petitioner Beberisa Riño, his spouse, filed a claim for death benefits before the Social Security System (SSS). However, the SSS denied the claim in this wise:8 [Through Dr. Florencia C. Peña, manager of the Medical Evaluation Department of the SSS.]

On appeal, the ECC affirmed the findings of the SSS.10 [Rollo, pp. 26-29.] Ruling that petitioner failed to present relevant evidence to establish the causal connection between the deceased’s ailment and his work as stevedore, the ECC held:

After the ECC denied the Motion for Reconsideration,12 [Rollo, p. 30.] petitioner appealed to the CA.

In affirming the ECC, the Court of Appeals ruled:

Hence, this Petition for Review.14 [The case was deemed submitted for decision on April 6, 1999, upon receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Assistant Solicitor General Cecilio O. Estoesta and Solicitor Antonio D. Marigomen. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Attys. Amelia C. Garchitorena and Eden B. Chavez of the Public Attorney’s Office, was filed on March 23, 1999.]

The lone issue submitted for this Court’s resolution is:

The Petition has no merit. Spped

Under the Labor Code, as amended,16 [Article 194.] the beneficiaries of an employee are entitled to death benefits if the cause of death is a sickness listed as occupational disease by the ECC; or any other illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.17 [Article 167 (l) of the Labor Code, as amended. See also Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation; Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals and Zenaida Liwanag, 296 SCRA 514, September 25, 1998.]

The primary and antecedent causes of Virgilio Riño’s death are not listed as occupational diseases. Hence, petitioner should have presented substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, showing that the nature of her husband’s employment or working conditions increased the risk of uremia, chronic renal failure or chronic glomerulonephritis.18 [Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Court of Appeals and Lilia S. Arreola, 264 SCRA 248, November 14, 1996.] This the petitioner failed to do.

Petitioner did not adduce any proof of a reasonable connection between the work of the deceased and the cause of his death. There was no showing that the progression of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions in Virgilio’s job. Indeed, petitioner presented no medical history, records or physician’s report in order to substantiate her claim that the working conditions at the Port Area increased the risk of uremia, renal failure or glomerulonephritis.19 [See Librea v. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System, 203 SCRA 545, November 14, 1991.]

As we ruled in Sante v. Employees’ Compensation Commission,20 (174 SCRA 557, 565, June 29, 1989, per Feliciano, J.] "x x x a claimant must submit such proof as would constitute a reasonable basis for concluding either that the conditions of employment of the claimant caused the ailment or that such working conditions had aggravated the risk of contracting that ailment. 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. That evidence must, however, be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by existing law is real x x x not merely apparent." At most, petitioner merely claims that: Jospped

Such bare allegation does not ipso facto make Virgilio’s death compensable. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions.22 [Kirit Sr v. Government Service Insurance System and Employees’ Compensation Commission, 187 SCRA 224, July 6, 1990.] The beneficiaries must present evidence to prove a positive proposition.23 [Raro v. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System, 172 SCRA 845, April 27, 1989.]

While this Court has ruled that the sympathy of the law on social security is toward its beneficiaries,24 [Employees’ Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals and Aida Alvaran, 257 SCRA 717, 726, June 28, 1996.] it is likewise important to note that such sympathy must be balanced by the equally vital interest of denying undeserving claims for compensation. "Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered by the law ignores the need to show a greater concern for the trust fund to which the tens of millions of workers and their families to look to for compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases and deaths occur."25 [Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 514, 531-532, September 25, 1998, per Davide, J. (Now CJ)] In this case, this Court has no other course but to apply the clear provisions of the law.26 [Government Service Insurance System v. Angelita L. Gabriel, GR No. 130379, June 21, 1999. See also Raro v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, supra.] Sppedjo

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Purisima, J., abroad, no part.