CASE DIGEST: Clemente vs GSIS G.R. No. L-47521 July 31, 1987

Clemente, petitioner vs GSIS, respondents

G.R. No. L-47521 July 31, 1987

Doctrine:

Article 4 Constructions in favor of Labor.  All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.  

It clashes with the injunction in the Labor Code (Article 4, New Labor Code) that, as a rule, doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimant-employee

Court has held in appropriate cases that the conservative posture of the respondents is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor of the workers

Facts:

Petitioner's husband, the late Pedro Clemente, was for ten (10) years a janitor in the Department of Health (Dagupan City), assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Laoag City. He was hospitalized from November 3 to 14, 1976 at the Central Luzon Sanitarium, Tala Sanitarium, Tala, Caloocan City, due to his ailment of "nephritis," as per medical certification of his attending physician, Dr. Winifredo Samson. He was also found to be suffering from such ailments as portal cirrhosis and leprosy, otherwise known as Hansen's Disease. On November 14, 1976, Pedro Clemente died of uremia due to nephritis. Thereafter, petitioner filed with the GSIS a claim for employees' compensation under the Labor Code, as amended. The GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner because the ailments of her husband are not occupational diseases taking into consideration the nature of his work and/or (sic) or were not in the least causally related to his duties and conditions of work.

Petitioner requested for reconsideration of the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of employment and were aggravated by the nature of his work. Petitioner alleged that her husband, as janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic (Laoag City), worked in direct contact with persons suffering from different skin diseases and was exposed to obnoxious dusts and other dirt which contributed to his ailment of Hansen's disease.

GSIS forwarded the records of the petitioner' claim for review by the ECC.  ECC affirmed the GSIS' action of denial and rendered its own decision dismissing petitioner's claim. ECC's decision was anchored upon the findings that the ailments are not listed as occupational diseases; that there was no substantial evidence of causal connection; and that, in fact, the evidence was that the deceased had already contracted the Hansen's disease before his employment.

As the illnesses of the deceased are admittedly, not listed under Annex "A" of the Rules as occupational diseases, the petitioner bases her claim under the theory of increased risk. She alleges that the deceased, as janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, was exposed to patients suffering from various kinds of skin diseases, including Hansen's disease or leprosy. She avers that for ten years, the deceased had to clean the clinic and its surroundings and to freely mix with its patients. She claims that it was during this time that he was attacked by other dreadful diseases such as uremia, cancer of the liver, and nephritis.

Issue: W/ON Nephritis can be considered as a ground for compensation due to the nature of work

Held: Yes. We note that the major ailments of the deceased, i.e. nephritis, leprosy, etc., could be traced from bacterial and viral infections. In the case of leprosy, it is known that the source of infection is the discharge from lesions of persons with active cases. It is believed that the bacillus enters the body through the skin or through the mucous membrane of the nose and throat.

The husband of the petitioner worked in a skin clinic. As janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Mr. Clemente was exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases. He had to clean the clinic itself where patients with different illnesses come and go. He had to put in order the hospital equipments that had been used. He had to dispose of garbage and wastes that accumulated in the course of each working day. He was the employee most exposed to the dangerous concentration of infected materials, and not being a medical practitioner, least likely to know how to avoid infection. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's working conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the aforementioned ailments. This Court has held in appropriate cases that the conservative posture of the respondents is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor of the workers. It clashes with the injunction in the Labor Code (Article 4, New Labor Code) that, as a rule, doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimant-employee.

Source and Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-47521_1987.html