Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 28, 2006

G.R. No. 142470 (Government Service Insurance System v. Leodovina Bariring)

The petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on March 15, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 44624, reversing and setting aside the decisions of the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) and that of the GSIS which denied the claim of respondent Leodovina Bariring for death benefits under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 626 or the Employees' Compensation Law.

Respondent is the surviving spouse of Segundo Bariring who died on February 26, 1993 due to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Emphysema). His service record shows that in 1975, he was appointed by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) as ditch tender in the Agno River Irrigation System at Urdaneta, Pangasinan. In 1989, he was promoted as Water Resources Facilities Tender B, which position he held until his death. Prior to his demise, Segundo was confined twice at the Don Amadeo J. Perez Sr. Memorial General Hospital from January 24 to 31, 1993, and February 18 to 26, 1993 due to COPD. It was this second confinement which led to his death. He was 61 years old.

Respondent filed a claim for death benefits under P.D. No. 626 with the GSIS. The GSIS denied the claim on the ground that emphysema is not considered an occupational disease for ditch tender nor is the nature of Segundo's work increased the risk of contracting disease. Respondent sent several letters for reconsideration to the GSIS requesting a re-evaluation of her claim, but to no avail.

Respondent appealed to the ECC which sustained the findings of the GSIS. The ECC stated that while the deceased's ailment is not included in the list of occupational diseases; respondent, unfortunately, failed to prove that the development of her husband's fatal ailment is traceable to his employment. It explained:

Moreover, medical findings reveal that Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease refers to a group of conditions; emphysema, chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma and bronchiectasis that are accompanied by chronic and recurrent obstruction to air flow within the lung. Because of the increase of environmental pollutants, cigarette smoking and other noxious exposure, the incidence of COPD has increased dramatically in the past two decades and it now presents one of the major cause(s) of morbidity and mortality. Emphysema, on the other hand, is a condition of the lung characterized by abnormal permanent enlargement of the air spaces distal to the terminal bronchiole, accompanied by destruction of their walls. Emphysema is a common disease. There is a clear-cut association between heavy cigarette smoking and emphysema, and the most severe type occurs in males who smoke heavily.[1]

Respondent elevated her case to the CA averring that while the cause of her husband's death is not listed under the law, his illness can still be considered as work-connected because of his exposure to unhygienic conditions in the performance of his work. In the course of his work, he was exposed to all types of dirty objects as he was then involved in the cleaning of irrigation canals, thereby exposing him to odorous, obnoxious, and foul smells as well as to dust, heat, cold, hunger and unfavorable climactic and environmental condition. The CA was persuaded and declared "the death of the late Segundo Bariring as compensable under the Employees' Compensation Law, as amended.[2]

Hence, this petition filed by the GSIS maintaining that the CA committed an error of law in declaring the death of Segundo Bariring compensable despite the lack of evidence showing that the risk of contracting emphysema (the cause of Segundo's death) was increased by the nature of his work.[3] In its Reply, the GSIS averred that proof of causal connection was even more material in this case considering that heavy cigarette smoking, which Segundo was admittedly addicted to, is the principal cause of emphysema. Moreover, his exposure to toxic elements is relatively nil as his assignments were merely in remote barangays where toxic air pollution is comparatively lesser.

We find no reversible error with the assailed decision.

In Salalima v. Employees' Compensation Commission,[4] the Court held that:

The degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. x x x

Indeed, the CA correctly pointed out that the nature of Segundo's work as ditch tender made him exposed to so many "environmental pollutants" and "other noxious substances" which have caused Segundo's COPD. It must be stressed that Segundo worked as a ditch tender for fourteen (14) years. He was later promoted to a position which he held only for four (4) years until his death. It would not be difficult to imagine how he was so exposed to the stench and filth of the canals for the long span of time which can also explain his chronic cigarette smoking. Certainly, his health has deteriorated through the years which ultimately led to his death. It would rather be specious not to attribute this to his work. We quote with favor the findings of the appellate court, as follows:

[T]he Statement of Duties and Responsibilities of the late Segundo B. Bariring, former ditch tender in the National Irrigation Administration, reveals that during his tenure thereat, he was tasked to:

1. Maintain cleanliness of canals and canal structures within the assigned section by clearing of debris or unnecessary obstruction;

2. Patrols canals to prevent unauthorized diversion of water;

3. Repairs open gap and other minor damages in the canal;

4. Assists in water delivery to end-users;

5. Assists in the distribution of bills and collection of irrigation fees.

From the foregoing enumeration of duties, it is not hard to discern that the late Segundo Bariring was engaged for the most part in field work. His was not the regular 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM office job. As it is, the nature of his work required him to be exposed to or be in contact not only with the elements but also with [the] multitude of unsanitary, and most probably toxic matters. Having been assigned to clean the canals and to rid them of all kinds of debris, it is not at all difficult to imagine the health hazards to which the deceased was regularly exposed as a ditch tender. Working on the field under such conditions, Segundo Bariring must have been in constant contact with or inhaled various organic and inorganic dusts, and even noxious gases while in the process of clearing the dirty canals of all their filthy obstructions. We also cannot rule out the possibility of pesticide and insecticide residues being integrated with the refuse or litter that he had been removing from the canals. It is not, therefore, without reason to conclude that the late Segundo Bariring died of COPD due to the nature of his work, or that his work contributed and heavily aggravated his latent pulmonary disease.

We find the foregoing conclusions of the respondent court in accord with jurisprudence on the matter. Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings.[5] It cannot be overstressed that the present law has not ceased to be an employees' compensation law or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails, and the official agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially in light of the compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances.[6]

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

First Division

[4] G.R. No. 146360, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 715, 722-723.

[5] GSIS v. Cuanang, G.R. No. 158846, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 639, 646.

[6] Salalima v. Employees' Compensation Commission, supra note 4, at 723.