Title
Mora, Jr. vs. Employees' Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-62157
Decision Date
Dec 1, 1987
Leticia Mora's adenocarcinoma claim, initially denied as non-work-related, was granted by the Supreme Court due to unknown disease cause and liberal comp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-79974)

Summary of Facts

Leticia Mora experienced recurring abdominal pain starting in January 1978, which led to her diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the ileocecal junction after a biopsy. Following surgery, her condition persisted, prompting the filing of a disability claim under Presidential Decree No. 626 (PD 626) with the GSIS. The GSIS denied the claim, stating that her cancer was not an occupational disease associated with her role as a telegraph operator. After Leticia's death on November 22, 1980, her husband pursued an appeal to the ECC, which ultimately affirmed the GSIS's denial claiming insufficient proof to link the cancer to her employment.

Applicable Law

The New Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically PD 442, amended by PD 1368, governs this case. The law stipulates criteria under which an illness could be classified as compensable: either as an occupational disease recognized by the ECC or showing that employment significantly increased the risk of contracting the illness. The definitions and conditions for determining compensability are established in Article 167 of the New Labor Code.

Legal Standards for Compensability

To qualify for benefits, an illness claimed must either belong to a listed occupational disease or demonstrate that employment conditions increased the likelihood of contracting said illness. The ECC's rules clarify that merely being listed as an occupational disease in Section 1(b) of Rule III is insufficient; there must also be evidence that employment significantly contributed to the illness. In Leticia's case, adenocarcinoma is not included in Annex "A" as an occupational disease; therefore, the burden was on the petitioner to provide proof of increased risk related to her employment.

Discussion on Causality

Despite ongoing scientific inquiry regarding cancer, the precise causes of adenocarcinoma remain largely undetermined. Evidence suggests it occurs more frequently in men, especially those in their forties to sixties, yet no specific triggers linked to Leticia’s employment were identified. The law and precedent highlight that when the cause of an ailment is indeterminate, imposing proof of causation to establish a work-related connection is inequitable and impractical.

Judicial Precedents

The court referred to important legal precedents that advocate for a more lenient approach in interpreting the requirement for evidence of workplace causation when knowledge of the ailment's etiology is lacking. This approach reflects a wider principle of social justice, emphasizing that undue burdens should not be placed on claimants

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.