Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review^[1] assailing the 29 July 2004 Decision^[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81353.

The Antecedent Facts

Rosalinda A. Bernadas (respondent) was a public school teacher at Jibao-an Elementary School, Jibao-an, Pavia, Iloilo City for almost 35 years. On 3 March 2000, she was supervising her students in a gardening activity within the school premises when she accidentally slipped and incurred a wound on the sole of her left foot. Elizabeth Jullado, the school nurse, rendered first aid.

Months later, a black mole appeared on respondent's affected sole, making it difficult for her to walk. It was later diagnosed as malignant melanoma.

In 2002, respondent filed a claim with the Iloilo Branch of the Government Service Insurance System (petitioner) for compensation benefit. On 19 June 2002, petitioner denied the claim on the ground that malignant melanoma was not among those listed by the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) as an occupational disease. Respondent moved for reconsideration of the denial of her claim. In its 21 October 2002 Order, petitioner denied the motion.

Respondent filed an appeal before the ECC. On 31 July 2003, as per Board Resolution No. 03-07-594, the ECC rendered a Decision^[3] denying the appeal. The ECC ruled that malignant melanoma could not be considered work-related. The ECC ruled that respondent failed to prove that her ailment originated from the wound she incurred when she slipped during the gardening activity in school. The ECC found that there was no evidence that respondent acquired her illness as a result of the performance of her duties, or that the illness persisted that would establish a causal relationship between the disease and her work.

Respondent filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, assailing the ECC's Decision.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

In its 29 July 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the ECC's Decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent's ailment was work-connected. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent sustained her injury while she was supervising the gardening activity in the school. The malignant melanoma originated from the wound that swelled when respondent accidentally slipped. The Court of Appeals ruled that the wound was work-connected since respondent sustained it while doing a school-related activity. The Court of Appeals held:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the August 6, 2003 Decision of the Employees Compensation Commission is REVERSED. Consequently, the Government Service Insurance System is ORDERED to pay petitioner's claim for compensation benefits as provided under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.^[4]

Petitioner came to this Court for relief via a petition for review.

The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in setting aside the ECC's Decision which denied respondent's claim for compensation benefit.

The Ruling of this Court

The petition has merit.

Under Section 1(b), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, "(f)or 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."

Sunlight, or ultraviolet light in particular, has been implicated as a probable major factor in the development of melanoma.^[5] Some families who have a high incidence of melanoma are distinguished by the occurrence of multiple and usually large moles that are atypical on clinical and histologic examinations.^[6]

In this case, melanoma is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex "A" of the Rules on Employees Compensation. Hence, respondent has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the causal relationship between her illness and her working conditions.^[7] Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.^[8]

We agree with the petitioner and the ECC that respondent was not able to positively prove that her ailment was caused by her employment and that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by her working conditions. While the law requires only a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation,^[9] respondent still failed to show that her illness was really brought about by the wound she sustained during the supervised gardening activity in school. The Court of Appeals accepted the allegation that the mole appeared right on the spot where respondent sustained the injury without any further proof that the mole appeared because of the injury. The Court of Appeals further ruled that "the risk of acquiring the said ailment increased by the nature of [respondent's] work in going to school and in returning to her residence during school days x x x." The Court of Appeals failed to consider that in a tropical country like the Philippines, exposure to sunlight is common. Unlike farmers, fishermen or lifeguards, it was not shown that respondent had chronic long-term exposure to the sun that is considered necessary for the development of melanoma.^[10] We cannot consider that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by respondent's working conditions simply because she was exposed to sunlight in going to work and returning to her residence.

Finally, we note that while respondent was initially diagnosed for malignant melanoma, the final pathological diagnosis^[11] revealed that there was no tumor seen on her and that the melanoma was benign. On this basis alone, respondent's claim for compensation should be denied.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 29 July 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81353. We REINSTATE the 31 July 2003 Decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Del Castillo, Abad, and Perez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 37-40. Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring.

^[3] Id. at 33-36.

^[4] Id. at 40.

^[5] CHARLES M. HASKELL, M.D., FACP, CANCER TREATMENT, p. 1158 (5^th Edition).

^[6] Id.

^[7] Orate v. Court of Appeals, 447 Phil. 654 (2003).

^[8] Id.

^[9] See Government Service Insurance System v. Cordero, G.R. No. 171378, 17 March 2009, 581 SCRA 633.

^[10] See Charles M. Haskell, M.D., FACP, Cancer treatment, supra note 5.

^[11] Rollo, p. 97.