Reply to the column of Mr. Jimenez

This refers to the column "SC rebuffs SSS, GSlS" which was published in the Opinion Section of The Freeman-Philippine Star on November 23, 2018. The said article partly states that “the Employees' Compensation has the worst record. This DOLE-supervised agency affirms all the denials of the SSS and nine of every 10 denials by the GSIS.”

May we provide the public with the following figures on the affirmation of denial rate on the EC Cases elevated by the GSIS and by the SSS from 2011- 2017:

In 2011 the number of cases resolved by the Commission from the SSS was 192, there were also 170 affirmed cases for a percentage rate of 89%. With the GSIS it was 29 cases resolved and 28 cases affirmed for a percentage of 97%

For 2012 it was 164 cases resolved and 153 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 94%, and 27 cases resolved and 26 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 96%.

For 2013 it was 123 cases resolved and 102 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 84%, and 48 cases resolved and 45 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 90%.

For 2014 it was 88 cases resolved and 46 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 52%, and 51 cases resolved and 43 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 84%.

For 2015 it was 80 cases resolved and 45 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 56%, and 51 cases resolved and 43 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 84%.

For 2016 it was 45 cases resolved and 26 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 58%, and 36 cases resolved and 28 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 78%.

For 2017 it was 81 cases resolved and 57 affirmed for the SSS for a percentage of 70%, and 36 cases resolved and 33 affirmed for the GSIS for a percentage of 92%.

On the EC Appealed Cases that were decided by the Supreme Court, our average affirmation rate from 2015 until 2017 is 81%. In resolving issue of compensability of EC appealed medical cases, we are guided by the following pronouncements of the Supreme Court:

"...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 and not merely apparent." (Sante v. ECC [G.R. No. l-84415, June 29, 1989)"… in any determination of compensability, the nature and characteristics of the job are as important as raw medical findings and a claimant's personal and social history.' (GSIS v. Calumpiano, G.R. No. '196102, Nov.26,2014)

On the allegation that the salaries at the ECC are outrageous, we are covered by the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). All increases in the amount of salaries in the said law have been approved by Congress, affirmed by the Office of the President and implemented by the Department of Budget and Management.

Jonathan T. Villasoto

Chairman

ECC-Technical Review Committee