Case Digest (G.R. No. 167572)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System v. Melvin I. Palma, G.R. No. 167572, July 27, 2007, the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS); respondent is Melvin I. Palma, a former public high school teacher who sought disability compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended (the Employees’ Compensation Act).
Respondent began government teaching on July 17, 1967 and served until his retirement in December 1997. In April 1980 he underwent surgical excision of a cervical lymph node and a total thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma; he had another excision in May 1982 and a tracheostomy in September 1997 that worsened his condition and precipitated retirement. On March 3, 1984 respondent filed a claim for compensation benefits with GSIS under PD 626. GSIS denied the claim on May 3, 1984 and, after reconsideration, reiterated denial for lack of proof of work-connection.
Beginning November 24, 2003, respondent sought conversion of his partial disability to total and permanent disability and pursued administrative review; on February 14, 2004 the ECC Director directed GSIS to elevate the records to the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC). In its Decision dated June 24, 2004, the ECC affirmed GSIS’s denial, reasoning that thyroid cancer is not listed in Annex “A” of the ECC Rules and that respondent failed to show substantial evidence that his work or working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease.
On September 3, 2004 respondent filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated March 28, 2005 the Court of Appeals reversed the ECC, finding it probable that respondent’s duties — strenuous use of his vocal cords in coaching declamation and exposure to chemicals such as paints and muriatic a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent prove that his thyroid cancer is compensable under PD 626, as amended, by showing that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working conditions (the increased-risk theory)?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in reversing the ECC given the evidence presented — i.e., did respondent present substantial evidence of reasonable work-con...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)