Impossible condition

Claim for compensation benefits for death or disability of government employees under the Employees Compensation Act may be awarded if the illness is accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). However, even if the ailment is not an occupational disease, it may still be compensable if it is sufficiently proven by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting it is increased by the working conditions.

In this case of Abe however, even if his illness was not in the list of occupational disease and even if there was no substantial evidence that the risk of contracting it was increased by his working conditions his claim was nevertheless awarded. Let’s find out why.

Abe first joined the military service as a Rifleman of the Philippine Navy on March 6, 1974. Thereafter he was designated Action Clerk and after 12 years he was transferred to the now defunct Philippine Constabulary (PC) with the rank of Technical Sergeant and subsequently Master Sergeant. When the PC was replaced by the Philippine National Police (PNP), he was absorbed in the organization with the rank of Senior Police Officer IV (SPO4).

After about 19 years in service, Abe was diagnosed to have Osteoblastic Osteosarcoma on his left cheek which is the most common bone cancer. While he underwent operation to remove the mass on the cheek, another biopsy revealed that his ailment had recurred. Even if Abe underwent debulking of the recurrent tumor, post-operative course was uneventful, so he underwent radiotherapy.

On December 1, 1994, Abe was compulsorily retired from the service. So he immediately filed a claim for income benefits under PD 626 with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on December 20, 1994. But GSIS denied his claim because his ailment was not in the ECC list as an occupational disease and there was no showing his duties as SPO4 in the PNP had increased the risk of contracting it. GSIS also denied his request for reconsideration.

On May 2, 1995, Abe died at the age of 45 survived by his wife Dora and two children who pursued the claim by appealing it to the ECC. Dora said that since Abe did some dirty jobs during his stint as Rifleman in the Philippine Navy, he was exposed to some elements which could have contributed more or less to the development of his ailment.

But the ECC also denied the appeal and sustained the GSIS ruling. ECC ruled that Dora’s allegation was a mere speculation and cannot be the basis of a finding that her late husband’s ailment had a causal connection with his work and working conditions. Nor can it be said that the nature of his work increased the risk of contracting the ailment. The ECC said that the illness is not prevalent in the Navy or the PNP. The ECC said that Dora and her children failed to adduce such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support their claim. Was the ECC correct?

No. It may be correct that awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions and that absent any proof that the risk of contracting the ailment was increased by the working conditions of the late Abe he would not be entitled to compensation.

It is practically undisputed however that under the present state of science, the proof required by law to be presented by the claimant Abe was unavailable and impossible to comply with. Hence the condition or requirement of the law must be deemed as not imposed. The obligation to present such impossible evidence must therefore be deemed void.

Abe or his heirs’ failure to present positive evidence of the causal relation of the illness and his working conditions is due to the pure and simple lack of available proof to be offered in evidence. Verily to deny compensation to osteosarcoma victims who will definitely be unable to produce a single piece of proof to that effect, is unrealistic, illogical and unfair. In the meantime that the origin and cause of osteosarcoma are unknown, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of the claim since employees’ compensation is based on social security principles and the Employees Compensation Act is basically a social legislation designed to afford relief to our working men. To disallow the benefit will even more add up to the sufferings, this time for the ignorance or the inability of mankind to discover the real truth about cancer. Abe’s heirs are therefore entitled to compensation (GSIS, ECC and PNP vs. Court of Appeals etc. G.R. 124208, January 28, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

*     *     *

E-mail at: [email protected]