Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42731)
Facts:
The case involves Better Buildings, Inc. as the petitioner and Severo M. Pucan, Dioscora C. Arellano, and Rogelio Fernando as respondents. The events leading to this case began when Rogelio Fernando was employed by Better Buildings, Inc. as a janitor in 1971, later being promoted to maintenance supervisor, earning a daily wage of P8.00 plus P1.25 for each hour of overtime, and working six days a week. On April 18, 1974, Fernando ceased working due to an illness diagnosed as "Hansen's Disease Lepromatous - positive with claw hands on both." Following this, he filed a notice of claim for workmen's compensation benefits. The petitioner contested the claim, arguing that the illness did not arise from employment, was not a direct result of it, nor was it aggravated by the work environment, asserting that the disease was caused by factors unrelated to Fernando's employment. To support this claim, Better Buildings, Inc. presented a certification from the Office...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42731)
Facts:
Employment and Promotion:
- Rogelio Fernando was hired by Better Buildings, Inc. as a janitor in 1971 and was later promoted to maintenance supervisor. He earned P8.00 per day with P1.25 per hour for overtime work, working six days a week.
Nature of Work:
- As a janitor, Fernando was assigned to clean funeral parlors, including Funeraria Paz in Manila and Quezon City, and later the Manila Banking Corporation. His duties included sweeping, scrubbing, cleaning areas where cadavers lay in state, assisting in dressing the dead, and disposing of trash and garbage after embalming.
Medical History:
- In 1963, Fernando was diagnosed with Hansen's Disease (Lepromatous Leprosy) but underwent treatment at the Central Luzon Sanitarium. On July 10, 1969, he was declared negative for the disease and released from the hospital.
Reappearance of Illness:
- On April 18, 1974, Fernando stopped working due to the reappearance of Hansen's Disease, which had progressed to claw hands on both hands and facial disfigurement. He was diagnosed as positive for Lepromatous Leprosy by Dr. Vicente Noblejas, a leprologist.
Claim for Compensation:
- Fernando filed a notice of claim for workmen's compensation benefits, arguing that his illness reappeared and was aggravated during his employment due to exposure to germs, bacteria, and other stresses while performing his duties.
Employer's Controversion:
- Better Buildings, Inc. contested the claim, arguing that Hansen's Disease was not an occupational disease and was not caused or aggravated by Fernando's employment. They presented a certification from the Leprosy Research and Training Center stating that Fernando had been suffering from advanced Lepromatous Leprosy since 1963.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Presumption of Compensability:
- Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a presumption that an illness contracted or aggravated during employment is compensable. The burden of refuting this presumption lies with the employer. Better Buildings, Inc. failed to provide substantial evidence to disprove the connection between Fernando's illness and his employment.
Probability of Causation:
- The Court emphasized that in compensation proceedings, probability, not absolute certainty, is the standard of proof. The physician's report indicated that Fernando's illness was "most probably" aggravated by his employment, which was sufficient to establish compensability.
Compensability of Hansen's Disease:
- The Court rejected the employer's argument that Hansen's Disease is not compensable. Citing previous cases, the Court held that leprosy, like tuberculosis, is a systemic disease that can be aggravated by environmental factors and weakened resistance due to employment conditions.
Award of Compensation:
- The Court ordered Better Buildings, Inc. to pay Fernando P6,000.00 as disability compensation benefits, P600.00 as attorney's fees, and P61.00 as administrative costs to the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that illnesses contracted or aggravated during employment are presumed compensable unless the employer can provide substantial evidence to the contrary. In this case, the employer failed to meet this burden, and the employee's claim for compensation was granted.