FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126352. September 7, 2001]
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA A. BARRAMEDA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The Case
The case is an appeal via
certiorari[1] from a decision of the Court of Appeals[2] which reversed and set aside the decision of
the Employees’ Compensation Commission[3] (hereafter, “ECC”) and the letters-decisions
of the Government Service Insurance System[4] (hereafter, “GSIS”) which denied respondent
Gloria A. Barrameda’s claim for compensation benefits under P. D. No. 626.[5]
The Facts
Gloria A. Barrameda
(hereafter, “Gloria”) started in the government service on July 1, 1971, as a
typist in the Court of First Instance of Manila.[6] On January 3, 1985, she transferred to the
Sandiganbayan and held the position of “clerk”. On July 1, 1989, she was promoted to the position of Clerk III at
the same office.[7]
As Clerk III, Gloria
would file and keep the records of Associate Justice Augusto M. Amores. All files were kept in old steel cabinets
which would jam from time to time because of rust and misalignment of the
cabinet’s rollers. Part of Gloria’s job
was to pull out the drawers of the cabinets where the folders of cases with
varying thickness and weight were filed.
Because sometimes the cabinets would jam, Gloria would have to exert
extra effort in pulling and pushing the cabinets’ handles.
On August 26, 1992, as
Gloria was pushing the drawer of one of the steel cabinets, she felt an
excruciating pain in her wrists as the drawer unexpectedly jammed midway. She cried out in pain, calling the attention
of her officemates, Court Attorney Paulino P. Santiago and Court Stenographer
Elenita C. Jasul.[8]
From then on, Gloria
experienced pain in both of her hands and gradually lost grip in both hands and
could no longer keep house or carry heavy objects.[9]
On September 14, 1992,
Gloria consulted Dr. Efren de los Santos of De Los Santos Medical Center, who
diagnosed her condition as “TENDONITIS EXTENSOR POLLICE’S (sic) LONGUS
THUMB, BILATERAL.” Gloria was placed on
medication and therapy.[10]
On March 23, 1993, Gloria
filed a claim for compensation benefits with the GSIS[11] in the amount of twenty thousand nine
hundred twenty two pesos and ninety one centavos (P20,922.91) broken down as
follows: seven thousand five hundred
pesos and ninety one centavos (P7,500.91) for medicine;[12] four
thousand eight hundred and
seventy pesos (P4,870.00) for physiotherapy[13] and eight thousand five hundred and fifty
two pesos (P8,552.00) for professional fees.[14]
On April 2, 1993, in a
pro-forma letter, the GSIS denied Gloria’s claim on the grounds that: First, the ailment is a
non-occupational disease, and Second, Gloria did not present any proof
that her position as Clerk III at the Sandiganbayan increased the risk of her
contracting the disease.[15]
On April 19, 1993, Gloria
filed with the GSIS a letter request for reconsideration of the aforementioned
letter-decision.[16]
On May 20, 1993, the GSIS
denied Gloria’s letter-request.[17]
On June 1, 1993, Gloria
filed with the GSIS a notice of appeal signifying her intention to appeal the
denial of her claim to the ECC.[18]
On September 9, 1993, the
ECC board resolved[19] to affirm the decisions of the GSIS.[20] According to the ECC, First,
there was no proof that the closing of the steel cabinet’s drawers on August
26, 1992 triggered Gloria’s ailment as Gloria sought medical assistance a month
after the incident. Second,
medical research reveals that Gloria’s ailment[21] is seen as the result of trauma, rheumatoid
arthritis or infection. It is usually
the result of strenuous or unaccustomed use of the adjacent joint. From this the ECC concluded that the ailment
could not have been contracted in the course of Gloria’s employment, and denied
her appeal. We quote the dispositive
portion of the decision:[22]
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, and the instant case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED.”
On November 29, 1993,
Gloria appealed from the ECC’s dismissal of her claim to the Court of Appeals.[23]
On September 6, 1996, the
Court of Appeals promulgated a decision finding that there existed substantial
evidence to grant Gloria’s claim. The
Court of Appeals recalled Gloria’s tasks as Clerk III of the Sandiganbayan and
concluded that such activities were strenuous enough to cause the ailment
complained of. However, while the Court
of Appeals ruled that the ailment suffered by Gloria was work related, the
Court of Appeals found that the amount claimed by Gloria was more than the
amount allowed to be reimbursed under the Amended Rules on Employees’
Compensation. Thus, the Court of
Appeals ruled:[24]
“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Petition is hereby GRANTED ordering the GSIS to reimburse petitioner of the proper amount compensable under the rules implementing PD 626.
“SO ORDERED.”
Hence, this petition.[25]
The Issue
Whether or not Gloria was
entitled to compensation for work related ailment under P.D. No. 626.
The Court’s Ruling
We rule in the
affirmative, and consequently, find the petition without merit.
Under P. D. No. 626, if
an ailment or sickness is not listed as an “occupational disease,” the claimant
must prove that the risk of contracting the illness suffered was increased by
his or her working conditions.[26] The degree of proof required is “substantial
evidence.” Jurisprudence defines “substantial evidence” as that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
the conclusion.[27] In the case at bar we find that the evidence
met the degree of proof required.
The affidavits submitted
by Gloria as well as certifications with respect to the injuries she suffered
and the nature of her work justified her claim.
The following are
Gloria’s functions as Clerk III in the Sandiganbayan:[28] First, types drafts and final copies of
decisions, resolutions, as well as correspondences emanating from the Office of
her Justice, and second, files and keeps records of the same.
We agree with the Court
of Appeals that it is reasonable to conclude that the aforementioned activities
which entail the opening and closing, pushing and pulling of rusty steel
drawers, which sometimes jam and misalign; the lifting and filing of voluminous
files and expedientes and the typing of various drafts and resolutions caused
strain and the overstretching of her wrists’ joints and tendons.
Jurisprudence provides
that to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable
proof and not direct proof of a causal connection between the work and the
ailment is required. To require proof
of actual causes or factors which lead to the ailment would not be consistent
with the liberal interpretation of the social justice guarantee in favor of
workers.[29]
We thus do not find any
error in the Court of Appeals’ ruling reversing the decision of the ECC. The ECC, as an agency charged by law to
implement social justice must adopt a more liberal attitude in favor of
claimants like Gloria when it decided her claim for compensability, especially
as in this case, when there was basis for inferring a work-connection to the
ailment she suffered. The policy of the
State is to give maximum aid and protection to labor.[30]
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 32703 is AFFIRMED in toto.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] Filed under Rule 45
of the Revised Rules of Court.
[2] In CA-G.R. SP No.
32703, promulgated on September 6, 1996, Martin, Jr., J., ponente,
de Pano, Jr. and Asuncion, JJ., concurring.
[3] In ECC Case No.
6400, dated September 9, 1993
[4] Dated April 2 and
May 20, 1993, respectively, signed by Officer in Charge Processing Division I,
Employees’ Compensation Department, Filomena C. Roque.
[5] The Employees’
Compensation and State Insurance Fund.
[6] Petition for Review,
Annex “D-1”, Service Record in the Judiciary, CA Rollo, p. 32.
[7] Petition for Review,
Annex “D”, Service Record, CA Rollo, p. 31.
[8] Petition for Review,
Annex “J-2”, Joint Affidavit, CA Rollo, p. 48.
[9] Petition for Review,
Annex “J”, Request for Reconsideration, CA Rollo, pp. 46-47, at p. 46.
[10] Petition for Review,
Annex “F”, Hospitalization Claim for Payment, CA Rollo, pp. 34-35.
[11] Income Benefits
Claim for Payment, Employees Compensation Commission Records, p. 110.
[12] Petition for Review,
Annex “G”, EC Medical Reimbursement Claim Form, CA Rollo, pp. 36-39.
[13] Petition for Review,
Annex “H”, EC Medical Reimbursement Claim Form, CA Rollo, pp. 40-42.
[14] Petition for Review,
Annex “I”, EC Medical Reimbursement Claim Form, CA Rollo, pp. 43-45.
[15] Petition for Review,
Annex “B”, Letter-Decision of the GSIS dated April 2, 1993, CA Rollo, p.
27.
[16] Petition for Review,
Annex “J”, Request for Reconsideration, CA Rollo, pp. 46-47.
[17] Petition for Review,
Annex “C”, Letter-Decision of the GSIS dated May 20, 1993, CA Rollo, p.
29.
[18] Petition for Review,
Annex “K”, Notice of Appeal, CA Rollo, p. 49.
[19] Board Resolution
93-09-0074, Certified correct by Board Secretary Hilarion H. Magno.
[20] Petition for Review,
Annex “A”, Decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission, pp. 25-26.
[21] Tendonitis (the
inflammation of the synoveal sheats covering the tendon).
[22] Petition for Review,
Annex “A”, Decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission, pp. 22-24.
[23] Petition for Review,
CA Rollo, p. 2.
[24] Petition, Annex “A”,
Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 21-31.
[25] On July 15, 1998, we
resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 59-60).
[26] Under the “theory of
increased risk” discussed in Librea v. Employees’ Compensation
Commission, 203 SCRA 545, 550 [1991]; Dabatian v. Government Service
Insurance System, 149 SCRA 123 [1987].
[27] Western Shipyard
Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Santiago Lighterage Corporation, G.R.
No. 110340, May 28, 2001.
[28] Petition for Review,
Annex “E”, Certification, CA Rollo, p. 33.
[29] Narazo v.
Employees’ Compensation Commission, 181 SCRA 874, 877 (1990).
[30] Lazo v.
Employees’ Compensation Commission, 186 SCRA 569, 574-575 (1990).