Abrahm A.

Apepe
Faculty of Civil Law
Section 1AA
GR# 95595, July 8, 1991
Jose De Guia, petitioner vs.
Employees Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System, respondents
The petition for certiorari challenges the decision of Employees Compensation Commission (ECC), which
affirmed the finding of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) that petitioners ailment Proliferative
Diabetic Retinopathy with Vitreous Hemorrhage is not compensable.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Facts: Petitioner was first employed as storekeeper by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on
March 23, 1956. He later earned several promotions from Assistant Agent to Senior Revenue Examiner until finally to
Supervising Revenue Enforcement Officer, which position he had when the ailment allegedly forced him to retire at
the age of 61.
Sometime between 1982 and 1983, upon experiencing loss of vision, petitioner consulted two eye
specialists. The first diagnosed the complication of both eyes as a result f cataract and vitreous hemorrhage resulting
from continuous visual insult in pursuit of his duties. The second prescribed and rendered laser photo-coagulation
upon diagnosing the petitioner with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy with Vitreous Hemorrhage.
Three years after, the loss of vision subsisting, petitioner underwent panretinal photo-coagulation at the
South Eastern Eye Center of North Carolina.
On June 19, 1987, petitioner filed a claim for compensation benefits under PD 626. However, the GSIS
denied the claim because the ailment is not listed as an occupational disease and it was not shown that the work did
not increase the risk of obtaining the disease. So, there was a bereft of evidence showing a casual relation between
the ailment and the employment or working condition.
Petitioner alleges that, as Revenue Examiner, he spent endless hours in examining voluminous income tax
returns which subjected him to constant physical and mental stress. Petitioner brought up the previous case of Millora
vs. ECC where stress in employment was medically recognized as factors in the development of diabetes.
Issue: Whether or not the ailment of the petitioner is subject to a claim for compensation benefits and if so, whether
or not the petitioner has a rightful claim for the said benefits.
Ruling: The Court held that under the Labor Code, in order to be entitled to the benefits, the disease must be
accepted as an occupational disease or be caused by the employment or working conditions.
The first condition is not satisfied since diabetic retinopathy and its underlying ailment, diabetes mellitus, are
not listed in the table of Occupational Diseases embodied in the Rules of Employees Compensation. The petitioner is
left with the second condition, which is to prove that the ailment was caused by the employment or working
conditions. Unfortunately, that burden of proof, petition has failed to discharge.
The petitioners diabetic retinopathy is linked with his diabetic condition, from which he was suffering for 25
years. In other words, the reason for the eye condition was the complication of the underlying disease. It also means
that even without the working conditions, the disease would have set in.
The underlying ailment, diabetes mellitus, is not work oriented. It is predisposed by heredity, obesity or old
age. Although the petitioner stated that none of their family members have the ailment, he failed to prove that he
could not have obtained such illness from obesity or old age. Thus, the court finds no casual relation.
It is different in the Millora case where the physical and emotional stress that was the reason for the disease
was compensated because the claimant was not predisposed to diabetes mellitus by reason of old age, heredity or
obesity. There is wanting of proof because what has been established was that petitioner was already suffering from
diabetes for no less than 25 years.