October 2012


Clemente vs. WCC and Rattan Art and Decorations Inc., G.R. No. L-42087, April 8, 1988


Facts: 

Ricardo Clemente, a machine set-up man at Rattan Art and Decorations Inc, died of acute cardiorespiratory failure, with manifest pulmonary infarct, cardiac dilatation and marked visceral congestion. The heirs’ claim for death compensation benefits under WCA was granted. On appeal, the Commission ruled in favor of private respondent and held that the deceased died from “bangungot” which is non-compensable, there being no proof of fundamental preliminary link between the cause of death and the decedent’s work.

Issue:
Whether or not there exist a causal connection between the cause of death and the nature of work of the deceased.

Ruling:

The Court held that the deceased died of “heart failure”,not of “bangungot”. And that there exist the probability that his work, as a set-up man, caused or aggravated his illness that led to his death. The death was, therefore, compensable.

Under the WCA, there is the presumption that the illness which supervened at the time of his employment, either arose out of or was at least aggravated by, such employment. The burden of disproving such presumption was on the private respondent. Even granting that deceased did die of ‘bangungot’, such phenomena is without legal or medical basis. Where the causes of an ailment are unknown and undetermined even by medical science, the requirement of proof of causal link between the ailment and the working conditions should be liberalized.

Case Digest: Clemente vs. WCC

Posted on

Monday, October 22, 2012


BEBERISA RIÑO vs. ECC and SSS, G.R. No. 132558, May 9, 2000

Facts:

Virgilio T. Riño Sr., was a stevedore at Allied Port Services since July 1982. In 1992, he died of “Uremia secondary to chronic renal failure” three days after he was rushed to the hospital after collapsing at work. Virgilio’s widow claimed for death benefits from the SSS. The claim was denied by the system and, subsequently, by the ECC for failure to present proof of causal connection between the decedent’s illness and his work as a stevedore.

Issue:
Whether or not Riño’s Death was compensable under PD626 by virtue of the increased risk theory.

Ruling:

The Court held that the decedent’s death was non-compensable.

The primary and antecedent causes of Virgilio Riño’s death are not listed as occupational diseases. Hence, petitioner should have presented substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, showing that the nature of her husband’s employment or working conditions increased the risk of uremia, chronic renal failure or chronic glomerulonephritis. Bare allegations do not ipso facto make the death compensable.  Since the petitioner failed to must adduce evidence to prove work-connection, the denial of claim was held proper.

BEBERISA RIÑO vs. ECC and SSS


Limbo vs. ECC and SSS, July 30, 2002 G.R. No.146891

Facts:

Ruben Limbo was employed at Nestlé Philippines, Incorporated as salesman in 1966 and was later promoted as Area Sales Supervisor in 1977 until 1996. In 1994, he was diagnosed with elevetaed BUN, creatinine, anemia and chronic renal disease. In 1995, he underwent a renal transplant. Limbo claimed for benefits from SSS bu the latter denied the claim, reasoning that Limbo’s illness, “end-stage renal disease secondary to uric acid nephropathy,” had no causal relationship to his job as Area Sales Supervisor. The ECC and CA dismissed the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not “end-stage renal disease secondary to uric acid nephropathy” is compensable under P.D. 626

Ruling:

The Court held that petitioner was able to show that his ailment was work-related and was, thus compensable.

Generally, for the sickness and the resulting disability to be compensable, it must be among the listed occupational diseases under the Amended Rules on Employees compensation. But the list is not exclusive and ailments not enumerated therein may still be compensable if claimant could prove that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working conditions or that there exist a “reasonable work connection”. The Court upheld the physician’s report which certified that Limbo’s illness was aggravated by the nature of his work. The ailment, being work-connected, was compensable.

Limbo vs. ECC and SSS


Tancinco vs. GSIS and ECC, November 16, 2001,  G.R. 132916

Facts:

SPO1 Eddie G. Tancinco was shot dead by five (5) unidentified armed men while off duty and repairing a service vehicle in front of his house. His widow claimed for benefits. The GSIS and ECC denied the claim for lack of proof that the death of Tancinco was work-related.

Issue:
Whether or not Tancinco’s death was compensable.

Ruling:

Tancinco’s death was not compensable.

The Court held that the facts and circumstances surrounding the decedent’s death failed to comply with the grounds set forth in Section 1, Rule III of the Amended Rules of Employees compensation for the injury and the resulting disability or death be compensable, to wit:(1) The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires him to be;(2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and (3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order for the employer.
The Court held that when the decedent died, he was not doing an act which is “basically police service in character” though he be on active duty call or otherwise nor was he pursuing a task ordered by his superior. He was, at the time he was killed, repairing his vehicle at his own home. Bereft proof of compliance with the requirements, the death was non-compensable.

Case Digest: Tancinco vs. GSIS and ECC


Valeriano vs. ECC and GSIS, June 8, 2000 GR 136200

Facts:
Celestino Valeriano was employed as a firetruck driver. On the evening of July 3, 1985, after having dinner with a friend, Valeriano met an accident  and was severely injured when the vehicle he was on collided with another. Valeriano claimed for benefits from the GSIS which the latter denied for being non-compensable. The ECC and CA sustained the system, reasoning that the injury resulted not from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment nor was it work-connected.

Issue: Whether or not the injuries sustained by VAleriano in the collision was compensable.
Ruling:

Valeriano’s injuries were non-compensable.

Valeriano’s contention, citing the Hinoguin and Nitura cases, that the 24-hour doctrine be applied to his case since the exigency of his job demand it to be so was held untenable by the Court. The Court did not find any reasonable connection between his injuries and his work as a firetruck driver. Applying the principle laid down in the Alegre case, the 24-hour doctrine is not meant to embrace all acts and circumstances of an employee though he be on active “on call” duty. Valeriano was neither at his assigned work place nor in pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met the accident.  He was also not doing an act within his duty and authority as a firetruck driver, or any other act of such nature, at the time he sustained his injuries. In fact, he was pursuing a purely personal and social function when the accident happened. The accident not work-connected was, therefore, non-compensable.

Case Digest: Valeriano vs. ECC and GSIS

Criminal Procedure: Rights of the Accused 
(...with my crush/professor. Teehee! If you tell her, I'll hunt you!)

RULE 115, SECTION 1: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Posted on

Tuesday, October 2, 2012