G.R. No. 189574               July 18, 2014 9.

Check[ing] and monitoring the continuous supply of fuel gas x x x;

ESTRELLA D. S. BAÑEZ, Petitioner, xxxx

vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Respondents. 10. Facilitat[ing] the movement of gas order cylinders during installation and receiving the same in good
condition;
DECISION
xxxx
PEREZ, J.:
15. Handl[ing] the inventory of laboratory stocks (e.g. chemicals, glassware, apparatus, laboratory
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Estrella consumables, laboratory fixtures and furniture) x x x.4
Banez (petitioner) assails the 4 November 2008 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 103693, which dismissed her petition and affirmed the denial of her From 9-15 April 2006, Baylon was confined at Manila Doctors Hospital due to fever, weakness, dysuriaand
claim for death benefits by the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) in its 4 flank pains. He was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary tract infection.5 About a month later or on 18 May
April 2008 Decision.2 Likewise subject of the petition is the 10 September 2009 Court of 2006, he was confined again for seven (7) days for functional dyspepsia.6 On 9 June 2006, he was admitted at
Appeals' Resolution3 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. the Medical Center Manila on complaints of vomiting and weakness.He was diagnosed to be suffering from
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus(SLE).
The undisputed facts are as follow:
On 30 July 2006, Dr. Erle S. Castillo (Dr. Castillo) prepared a clinical abstract/toxicologic assessment on
Baylon R. Bañez (Baylon), the husband of petitioner, was employed by De La Salle Baylon and she stated that "based on the occupational history of the patient, x x x the probability of a
University (DLSU) on 19July 1967. From 25 January 1991 to 26 August 2006, Baylon chemically induced disease [cannot be discounted]."7
worked asa Laboratory Technician at the Chemistry Department of DLSU. Some of his
duties and responsibilities, as described in his Certificate of Employment, were: On 9 August 2006, Baylon was again admitted at the Medical Center Manila before he succumbed to the
complications of his disease on 27 August 2006. He died of SLE with Auto-Immune Hemolytic Anemia, SLE
1. Primarily assigned to the operation of College of Science Chemistry Laboratories and Nephritis, SLE Vasculitisand ThrombocytopeniaSecondary to SLE.8
stockrooms x x x;
On 30 October 2006, Baylon’s attending physician, Dr. Dennis Torres (Dr. Torres), issued a Medical
xxxx Certificate stating that Baylon "who was confined and expired in Medical Center Manila for Systemic Lupus
Erythematosusmay have been precipitated by the chronic exposure to chemicals which is an occupational
2. Preparing reagents and other laboratory materials before each assigned laboratory hazard in his performance of being a laboratory technician."9
class(es) and dispensing them during classes even if on leave, prepares the reagents
ahead of time; Based on medical opinions of Dr. Castillo and Dr. Torres, petitioner filed a claim for death benefits under the
Employees’ Compensation Law before the Social Security System (SSS). On 21 September 2007, SSS denied
xxxx petitioner’s claim on two grounds: 1) the cause of death, cardiac complication of SLE, is not considered work-
related; and 2) SLE is not included in the list of occupational diseases.10
8. Maintaining cleanliness and general order in the stockrooms x x x;
Petitioner appealed SSS’s denial of her claim with the ECC. On 4 April 2008, the ECC In its Comment, SSS defends the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the appeal, in that the perfection of
affirmed the denialof death benefits by the SSS. In denying the claim, the ECC delved appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by the rules is not only mandatory but jurisdictional.
intothe nature of SLE and found that, "SLE is caused by a genetic tendency to mount an SSS maintains that there is no probability, much less certainty, of establishing a causal relation between the
abnormal immune response against one’s own tissues or organs leading to their disease inquestion which cause the subject member’s death and his actual duties during his employment. SSS
destruction or malfunction. The said disease is diagnosed by its characteristic clinical asserts that petitioner failed to show relevant evidence to establish a causal relationship.
presentation and by DNA studies."11 Petitioner impugned the findings of the ECC in a
Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner initially moved for a 30-day There is no merit in the petition.
extension to file a petition for review due to absence of counsel and pending acceptance
of her case by the UP Office of Legal Aid. The Court of Appeals granted a 15-day Petitioner received a copy of the Decision on 16 May 2008. Thus, she had until 31 May 2008 to file her
extension so petitioner had until 15 June 2008 to file her petition for review.12 She filed petition. Instead, petitioner filed a motion for extension of 30 days from 31 May 2008 within which to file her
the same on 4 July 2008. petition. The Court of Appeals granted petitioner a mere 15-day extension pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43 13 of
the Rules of Court, thus:
In a Resolution dated 4 November 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for
review because it was filed out of time. However, in the interest of justice, the Court resolved to grant the petitioner-appellant a non-extendibleperiod
of fifteen days from May 31, 2008 or until June 15, 2008 within which to file her intended petition for review,
In the instant petition, petitioner explains that the petition for review before the Court of otherwise, the instant case shall be dismissed.14
appeals was filed beyond the 15-day extension period because she was in the process of
obtaining free legal assistance in the preparation of her appeal and she only received the Petitioner had until 15 June 2008 to file her petition. Petitioner filed the petition only 4 July 2008. Even if the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals giving her only 15 days or until 15 June2008 to file reckoning point is the extended period, the petition was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals simply applied
her petition on 26 June 2008. Petitioner urges the Court to relax the rules and dispose the the rule.
case on the merits. Petitioner argues in the main that the work of her husband as a
Chemistry Laboratory Technician which involved chronic exposure to chemicals might It is doctrinally entrenched thatappeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence,parties
have precipitated the latter’s illness and eventual death. Petitioner presented the who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. 15 The rule is that failure to
Toxicologic Assessment made by Dr. Castillo, as well as the Medical Certificate file or perfect an appeal within the reglementary period will make the judgment final and executory by
prepared by Dr. Torres to support her claim. She insisted that the medical opinions of the operation of law. Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but
two physicians, based on medical records and findings, constitute substantial evidence to also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision/resolution final and executory, and deprives
back up her claim. She pointed out that the ECC should not have disregarded medical the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the decision/resolution, much less to entertain the appeal. 16 Filing of
records and opinions solely on the ground that the nature of the illness was auto-immune. an appeal beyond the reglementary periodmay, under meritorious cases, be excused if the barring of the appeal
Citing jurisprudence,petitioner contends that medical opinion to the contrary can be would be inequitable and unjust in light of certain circumstances therein. 17 While there are instances when the
disregarded especially when there is some basis in facts for inferring a work-connection. Court has relaxed the governing periods of appeal in order to serve substantial justice, this was done only in
exceptional cases.18 We find no compelling reason to justify the filing of the petition for review before the
DLSU filed its Comment praying for the dismissal of the petition on grounds of lack of Court of Appeals beyond the reglementary period.
jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DLSU argues that it never participated in the
proceedings and was never served summons in any form or manner or even apprised of Just as significant, even if we grant petitioner’s prayer for a ruling on the merits of the case, denial of the
any claim, motion or decision whether in the SSS, ECC or the Court ofAppeals. petition cannot be avoided.
Moreover, DLSU claims that petitioner’s claim for death benefitswas directed towards
the SSS with no allegation of any responsibility that DLSU may have for the same. The findings of fact of the SSS are supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the ECC and the Court
ofAppeals. This Court is not a trier of facts. The Court accords great weightto the factual findings of lower
courts or agencies whose function is toresolve factual matters. It is not for the Court to failed to prove the causal relationship between Baylon’s work and his illness. The report made an indirect link
weigh evidence all over again. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and between SLE and chemicals through "drug-induced lupus."
quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction isconfined
to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect butfinality when affirmed by SLE and Drug-Induced Lupus Erythematosus are both autoimmune diseases.1âwphi1 Drug-induced lupus is a
the Court of Appeals.19 temporary and mild form of lupus caused by certain prescription medications. Theyinclude some types of high
blood pressure drugs (such as hydralazine, ACE inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers) and
In order for the beneficiary of an employee to be entitled to death benefits under the SSS, diuretics(hydrochlorothiazide). Symptoms resolve once the medication is stopped.25
the cause ofdeath of the employee must be a sickness listed as an occupational disease by
ECC; or any other illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of On record, Baylon contracted SLE. There was nothing on the record which shows that Baylon was diagnosed
contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.20 with drug-induced lupus.

It is undisputed that SLE is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex "A" of the Furthermore, the toxicological report made mention of "certain drugs with chemical structures related to
Rules on Employees’ Compensation.1âwphi1 Thus, petitioner has to prove by substantial aromatic amines or substituted hydrazines, listed in the inventory ofthe school, can affect the immune system.
evidence the causal relationship between her husband’s illness and his working This would include Benzenes, Naphthylamine, Toluene, Dinitrophenylhydrazine, etc." However, these drugs
conditions. were not proven to have been administered on Baylon. These substances which can induce the disease all
pertain to drugs which are orally administered on the patient. There is no showing that the drugs given to
For petitioner’s claim to prosper, she must submit such proof as would constitute a Baylon had increased his risk of contracting Drug-Induced Lupus and SLE.
reasonable basis for concluding either that the conditions of employment caused her
husband’s ailment or that such working conditions had aggravated the risk of contracting Once again, we reiterate our holding in Lorenzo v. Government Service Insurance System 26 that while we
that ailment.21 sympathize with the petitioner, it is important to note that such sympathy must be balanced by the equally vital
interest of denying undeserving claims for compensation. Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered
Baylon was diagnosed with SLE. But petitioner filed her claim on the basis of the by the law ignores the need to show a greater concern for the trust fund to which the tens of millions of
doctor’s and toxicologist’s assessments that Baylon’s illness may have been precipitated workers and their families look to for compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases and deaths occur.
by his exposure to chemicals. Petitioner alleges that in the course of her husband’s duty
as a laboratory technician, he was chronically exposed to the following chemicals: With respect to the inclusion of DLSU as respondent, we find that the Court of Appeals erred in impleading
Ninhydrin, alpha napthol, ethanol, cupric acetate, glacial acetic acid, phenylhydrazine, DLSU. The original case title before the ECC is, "Estrella D.S. Bañez v. Social Security System (De La Salle
orcinol, sodium citrate, potassium tartrate, bromine, carbon tetrachloride, sodium University)," to emphasize that DLSU is the Baylon’s employer. DLSU was not furnished a copy of the ECC’s
hydroxide, mercuric nitrate, arsenic, mercury, zinc chloride, ammonia, antimony, Decision. When petitioner filed her motion for extension, as well as petition for review, she did not implead
tricarboxylic acid, benzidine, chromic acid, hydrogen sulfide, potassium permanganate, DLSU, but the Court of Appeals in its Decision and Resolution added DLSU as a respondent, without however
phenols, naphthalene, benzene, lead, thiourea, and heptanes, among others.22 furnishing it copies of the Decision and Resolution. However, the erroneous inclusion made by the Court of
Appeals appears to be inadvertent and harmless. For clarification purposes, the case against DLSU should be
While there are certain chemicals accepted as increasing the risks of contracting SLE dismissed in this case for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction.
such as chlorinated pesticides and crystalline silica,23 the law requires proof by
substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
adequateto justify a conclusion, that the nature of his employment or working conditions CA-G.R. SP No. 103693 dated 4 November 2008 dismissing the petition for review, and its Resolution dated
increased the risk of contracting the ailment or that its progression or aggravation was 10 September 2009, which denied the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
brought about thereby.24 Petitioner relied unqualifiedly on the toxicological report which
SO ORDERED.