In compensation proceedings, the test of proof is probability, not absolute certainty; hence, a claimant only needs to show reasonable work connection and not direct causal relation.[1]
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Section 1, Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation[34]provides:
RULE III
Compensability
SECTION 1. Grounds –
(a) For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. (ECC Resolution No. 2799, July 25, 1984).
(b) For the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of these Rules with the conditions set therein satisfied, otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions.
x x x x
Corollarily, for the sickness or resulting disability or death to be compensable, the claimant must prove either (1) that the employee’s sickness was the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, or (2) that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working conditions.
Certainty is not required only probability
Under the increased risk theory, there must be a reasonable proof that the employee’s working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, or that there is a connection between his work and the cause of the disease.[35] Only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, however, is required to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease.[36] Probability, and not certainty, is the yardstick in compensation proceedings; thus, any doubt should be interpreted in favor of the employees for whom social legislations, like PD No. 626, were enacted. [37]
Compensability proved by substantial evidence
Moreover, direct and clear evidence, is not necessary to prove a claim.[38] Strict rules of evidence do not apply as PD No. 626 only requires substantial evidence or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”[39]
In this case, since Besitan’s ailment, End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis is not among those listed under Annex “A,” of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, he needs to show by substantial evidence that his risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working condition.
After a careful study of the instant case, we find that Besitan has sufficiently proved that his working condition increased his risk of contracting Glomerulonephritis, which according to GSIS may be caused by bacterial, viral, and parasitic infection (i.e. Typhoid fever, Syphilis, Leptospirosis, Toxoplasmosis, Varicella, Mumps, Measles, Schistosomiasis, Hepatitis B and C infection, etc.).[40]
When Besitan entered the government service in 1976, he was given a clean bill of health. In 2005, he was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis. It would appear therefore that the nature of his work could have increased his risk of contracting the disease. His frequent travels to remote areas in the country could have exposed him to certain bacterial, viral, and parasitic infection, which in turn could have caused his disease. Delaying his urination during his long trips to the provinces could have also increased his risk of contracting his disease. As a matter of fact, even the Bank Physician of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Dr. Gregorio Suarez II, agreed that Besitan’s working condition could have contributed to the weakening of his kidneys, which could have caused his disease, to wit:
This is to certify that Mr. Manuel P. Besitan [is] a Bank Examiner of BSP, whose duties [require] him to work over prolonged hours and travel to remote places in the
He claims that during the delivery of his duties he often [foregoes] urination and taking replenishment of water. At times, he claims that he has to eat and drink what is available in the area [of his bank examination]. This could probably contribute to the increase of uric acid in his system.
All these conditions could contribute to the weakening of his kidney thereby [progressing] to the present condition of his ESRD.[41]
Clearly, the above-quoted Medical Certificate[42] is sufficient to prove that the working condition of Besitan increased his risk of contracting Glomerulonephritis. In claims for compensation benefits, a doctor’s certification as to the nature of a claimant’s disability deserves full credence because no medical practitioner would issue certifications indiscriminately.[43] As we see it then, Besitan was able to prove by substantial evidence his entitlement to compensation benefits under PD No. 626.
In closing, it may not be amiss to add that the primordial purpose of PD No. 626 is to provide meaningful protection to the workers against the hazards of disability or illness; hence, a liberal attitude in favor of the employee and his beneficiaries in deciding claims for compensation should be adopted.[44]
x x x."
