Title
Employees' Compensation Commission vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 121545
Decision Date
Nov 14, 1996
A chemical laboratory technician successfully proves that the nature of her work and working conditions increased the risk of contracting ureterolithiasis, entitling her to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Program.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 121545)

Facts:

  • Lilia S. Arreola was employed as a Chemical Laboratory Technician at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) starting March 23, 1972.
  • She received multiple promotions, eventually becoming Engineer II, responsible for conducting analyses, supervising equipment, and handling field cases.
  • In May 1993, Arreola suffered severe left flank pain and was diagnosed with ureterolithiasis, requiring surgery on May 18, 1993.
  • Post-surgery, she incurred medical expenses amounting to P16,019.00.
  • On June 16, 1993, Arreola filed a claim for compensation benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626 (PD No. 626) with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
  • Her claim was denied, citing that ureterolithiasis was a non-occupational disease and that she failed to prove her work increased the risk of the illness.
  • After her appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) was also denied, she sought relief from the Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, stating her work increased the risk of developing ureterolithiasis, leading to the case being elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming that Lilia S. Arreola was entitled to compensation benefits under PD No. 626, as amended.
  • The Court found that her work indeed heightened the risk of devel...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court's decision was grounded in the principles of PD No. 626, which allows for compensation if a claimant's working conditions increase the risk of a disease, even if it is not listed as an occupational disease.
  • The Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of social legislation aimed at protecting workers, as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
  • It clarified that substantial evidence was sufficient to support Arreola'...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.