There’s justice for laborers, after all
The ECC denied the claim of the respondent when it ruled that since prostate cancer is a non-occupational disease, respondent was required to prove that her husband’s work increased the risk of him contracting prostate cancer
“Settled is the rule that for a non-occupational disease to be compensable, substantial evidence must be presented to prove that the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the employee’s working conditions. It suffices that the evidence presented establishes a reasonable work connection. It is not necessary that a direct causal relation be proven.”
On 20 June 2022, the Supreme Court, in the case of Social Security System v Violeta A. Simacas, G.R. 217866, denied the petition for review filed by the Social Security System (SSS) and affirmed the
Decision of the Court of Appeals that reversed the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC).
In the said case, the ECC denied the claim of the respondent when it ruled that since prostate cancer is a non-occupational disease, respondent was required to prove that her husband’s work increased the risk of him contracting prostate cancer.
It noted that considering the nature of Irnido’s work and the etiology of prostate cancer, his work could not have contributed to the development of the disease. It further held that no evidence was presented by Violeta to establish a causal relation between Irnido’s work and the illness which caused his death.
In reversing the said pronouncement by the ECC and ordering the SSS to pay the respondent’s claim, the Court of Appeals stressed that: “Presidential Decree 626 is a social legislation designed to protect workers from loss of income by reason of the hazards of disability and illness. It emphasized that for this purpose to be realized, the implementing authorities must adopt a liberal attitude in deciding compensability of claims.”
Not only was this ruling a clear application of liberality of labor laws but also a clear manifestation that we are going in the right direction.
Considering that it was impossible for the respondent to present evidence of causal relation since the specific cause of prostate cancer is medically unknown, it ruled that “the obligation to present such impossible evidence… must, therefore, be deemed void.”
The Supreme Court, in denying the petition for review filed by the SSS of the decision of the Court of Appeals, adopted a somewhat scientific approach even going beyond the wordings of the law and looking into the medical probabilities by stating:
“[H]owever, several studies have suggested that work-related exposures to certain substances, such as chromium, have the potential of affecting the risk of getting prostate cancer. A recent study revealed a small but significant increase in prostate cancer risk for chromium exposure.”
The Supreme Court discussed that considering the deceased’s work engaged in handling stainless steel, he is likewise exposed to chromium in varying degrees. It is, thus, not unlikely that Irnido’s work increased the risk of him contracting the disease. This probability suffices to warrant the grant of the claimed benefits.
Not only was this ruling a clear application of liberality of labor laws but also a clear manifestation that we are going in the right direction. That is “(T)o provide meaningful protection to the working class against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income.” (Obra v Social Security System, 449 Phil. 200).”