Case Digest (G.R. No. 193500)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System v. Simeon Tanedo, Jr., G.R. No. 193500, November 20, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 45 sought review of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated April 15, 2010 and its Resolution of August 18, 2010 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 102493 (authored by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring), which had reversed the Employees’ Compensation Commission’s (ECC) Decision of December 17, 2007 in ECC Case No. GM‑17750‑0917‑07.Respondent Simeon A. Tanedo, Jr. was a records officer at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from 1976 until his retirement in December 2007. His duties included encoding and printing treasury reconciliation statements, delivering such documents to other offices, filing statements and letters, and performing functions assigned by his division chief. On December 1, 2003, a medical examination at the National Kidney Institute diagnosed varicosities (superficial varicose veins) in his left leg with mild venous reflux; there was no evidence of deep venous thrombosis.
Tanedo filed a claim with GSIS for compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended (PD 626), asserting that his varicosities supervened in the course of employment. GSIS denied the claim by letter dated January 24, 2004 on the ground that varicosities are not an occupational disease listed in Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation (AREC). On appeal the ECC affirmed GSIS’s denial, applying the Increased Risk Theory and finding that medical science points to familial tendency as the principal predisposing factor and that Tanedo failed to show his employment increased the risk of contracting varicosities.
Tanedo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on April 15, 2010 reversed the ECC and ordered GSIS to pay compensation benefits under PD 626. GSIS’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its August 18,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that Tanedo’s varicosities were work‑connected or that the nature of his work increased the risk of contracting the condition?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in granting Tanedo temporary disability benefits under ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)