Dabatian v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.

L-47294, April 8, 1987, 233 PHIL

FACTS:
At the time of his death, Sigfredo A. Dabatian was employed as Garbage Truck Driver in the
General Services Department of the City Government of Cagayan de Oro City. As Garbage Truck
Driver, he was assigned mostly in the night shift. In fact, at the time of his death his time of duty
started from 10:00 o'clock at night to 6:00 o'clock in the morning the next day. It was gathered
from the evidence on record that the deceased was a heavy coffee drinker which was his way of
warding off sleepiness.
Prior to his death, he was observed by his co-employees to have been getting paler and weaker
while at work until the time he collapsed and became unconscious while on his tour duty and was
brought to his residence by his companions. Despite hospitalization, he died two weeks later on
July 3, 1976.
A claim for income benefits under the Employee's Compensation Program was filed by the
widow, the herein appellant. The Government Service Insurance System decided against the
compensability of the claim on the ground that decedent's ailment, Peptic Ulcer, is not definitely
accepted as an occupational disease, as listed under the present law on compensation. Neither was
there a showing that the same was directly caused by his employment and that the risk of
contracting the same was increased by the working conditions attendant to the deceased's
employment.
The case was then elevated to the ECC which ruled that:
Upon evaluation based on generally accepted medical authorities, the deceased's ailment was
found not to be in the least causally related to his duties and conditions of work. His ailment was
principally traceable to factors which were definitely not work-connected, specifically, his
inherent predisposition to drinking coffee heavily which could have aggravated his contraction of
the disease resulting to his death. However, aggravation of an illness is not a ground for
compensation under the present compensation law." 
On these considerations, the ECC found no sufficient basis to reverse the ruling of the GSIS denying
petitioner's claim. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
whether or not under the premises the death of Sigfredo A. Dabatian is compensable.

RULING:
No, the death of Sigfredo A. Dabatian is not compensable.

The petition obviously addresses itself to the presumption of compensability and the principle of
aggravation which were sufficient grounds for entitlement under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In
fact, all the cases cited by the petitioner were decided under the old compensation law.
The records show that petitioner died on July 3, 1976 when the old compensation law had already been
abrogated. No competent evidence whatsoever was submitted to prove that Dabatian's ailment was
contracted prior to January 1,1975 in order to bring it under the protective mantle of the old
compensation law.  There are no medical findings, affidavits, reports or any other evidence that
deceased suffered from pain or any discomfort prior to the effectivity of the New Labor Code. No
allegation was even made to this effect. True it is, that strict rules on evidence do not apply in cases
such as this and that all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor. However, We cannot over-extend
the limits of such rules. Justice and fair play dictate otherwise. The new law on compensation should be
applied to this case.
The present Labor Code, P.D. 442 as amended, abolished the presumption of compensability and the
rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of employment, the reason being — "to restore a
sensible equilibrium between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's compensation and the
employee's right to receive reparation for work-connected death or disability . . . ." It was found, and
rightly so, that the old law, the Workmen's Compensation Act, destroyed the parity or balance between
the competing interests of employer and employee with respect to workmen's compensation. The
balance was tilted unduly in favor of the workmen since it was possible to stretch the work-related
nature of an ailment beyond seemingly rational limits. 
Thus, under the present law, in order for the employee to be entitled to sickness or death benefits, the
sickness or death resulting therefrom must be, or must have resulted from either a) any illness definitely
accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or b) any illness caused by employment
subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.
Since peptic ulcer is not included in the list of occupational diseases as drawn up by the Commission,
then petitioner has the burden of proving that the nature of her husband's work increased the risk of
contracting the disease.
Aside from the undisputed fact that the deceased is a heavy coffee drinker, which was his way of
warding off sleepiness, no evidence was ever adduced by petitioner to bolster the theory that her
husband's work increased the risk of contracting the ailment.
Being a heavy coffee drinker may have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no
longer a ground for compensation under the present law.
This Court takes notice of the fact that the conditions in this case are not peculiar to the work mentioned
herein. Many, if not most, employees are equally exposed to similar conditions but have not been
victims of peptic ulcer.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied for lack of merit. No costs. SO ORDERED.