Facts:

Petitioners husband, Juancho S. Salalima, was employed for twenty-nine years as a route helper and
subsequently as route salesman for the Meycauayan Plant of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., In 1989,
Juancho was diagnosed with minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. On October 1994 when Juancho was
confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital to undergo section biopsy. His biopsy revealed that he had
Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, metastatic. Consequently, he underwent chemotherapy at
the Makati Medical Center. On February 1, 1995, he suffered from pneumonia. On February 14, 1995,
he was confined at the Makati Medical Center and died two days later on February 16, 1995 due to
Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs with widespread metastasis to Neck, Brain, Peritoneal Cavity,
Paracaval Lymph Nodes, Abscen; Acute Renal Failure; Septicemia; Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

A claim for compensation benefits under P.D. 626 as amended was filed by his surviving wife,
Azucena, petitioner herein, with the Social Security System (SSS). In a report dated November 12,
1998, SSS Branch Manager Montenegro and Senior Physicians Corazon Bondoc and Annabelle
Bonifacio recommended the denial of petitioners claim on the ground that Adenocarcinoma of the
Lungs (Cancer of the Lungs) had no causal relationship with Juanchos job as a route salesman.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, petitioner brought the case to the
Employees Compensation Commission (ECC), which affirmed the decision of the SSS.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals arguing that Juanchos route as a salesman
exposed him to all kinds of pollutants, not to mention the daily hazards and fatigue that came with
his tasks. She pointed out that the SSS and the ECC disregarded Juanchos medical history and the fact
that the risk of contracting Juanchos ailment was increased by the nature of his work.

On April 12, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the ECC, stating that the factual
findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the ECC, if supported by substantial evidence, are entitled
to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields.

Hence this case.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF CA DENYING PETITIONERS CLAIM UNDER P.D. 626, AS
AMENDED, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ON EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND EXISTING
JURISPRUDENCE.
Held:

The court find merit to the petition.

The degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means, such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. What the
law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the
hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can
be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-
connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.

Juanchos job required long hours on the streets as well as his carrying of cases of soft drinks during
sales calls. The combination of fatigue and the pollutants that abound in his work environment verily
contributed to the worsening of his already weak respiratory system. His continuous exposure to
these factors may have led to the development of his cancer of the lungs.

P.D. 626, as amended, is said to have abandoned the presumption of compensability and the theory
of aggravation prevalent under the Workmens Compensation Act. Despite such abandonment,
however, the present law has not ceased to be an employees compensation law or a social legislation;
hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails, and the official
agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a
liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially in light of
the compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances