ESTRELLA D.S.

BAÑEZ, Petitioner
Versus
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY,
Respondents

GR# 189574, JULY 18, 2014

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 1

 This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Estrella Bañez
(Petitioner) assails the Resolution of the Court of
Appeals which dismissed her petition and affirmed
the denial of her claim for death benefits by the
Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC).
Likewise, subject of the petition is the Court of
Appeal's Resolution which denied petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 2

Facts of the Case
• Baylon R. Bañez, the husband of petitioner, was
employed by De La Salle University (DLSU) on July
19, 1967. From January 25, 1991 to August 26, 2006
• Baylon worked as Laboratory technician at the
Chemistry Dept. of DLSU.
• Part of his duties and responsibilities was handling
the inventory of laboratory stocks (chemicals,
glassware, apparatus, laboratory consumables,
laboratory fixtures and furniture.
22/03/2018 Editha Quine 3
Facts of the Case
• On April 9 to 15, 2006, Baylon was confined in the
hospital and was diagnosed to be suffering from
urinary tract infection.
• A month later, he was confined again for 7 days for
functional dyspepsia. On June 9, 2006 he was
confined again on complaints of vomiting and
weakness. He was diagnosed to be suffering from
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE).

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 4

Facts of the Case
• On July 30, 2006, Dr. Castillo prepared a clinical
abstract/toxicologic assessment on Baylon and she
stated that “based on the occupational history of the
patient, the probability of a chemically induced
disease cannot be discounted.”

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 5

Facts of the Case
• On August 9, 2006, Baylon was again admitted in the
hospital and succumbed to the complications of his
disease on August 27, 2006. He died of SLE.
• His attending physician, Dr. Torres issued a medical
certificate stating that Baylon's death was
precipitated by the chronic exposure to chemicals
which is an occupational hazard in the performance
of his job as laboratory technician.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 6

Facts of the Case
• Based on the medical opinions of the two doctors,
petitioner filed a claim for death benefits under
the Employees' Compensation Law before the
Social Security System.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 7

Facts of the Case
• SSS denied 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

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 8

Issue(s):
1. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to
claim death benefits
2. Whether or not the dismissal of her petition for
review by the Court of Appeals is valid
3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
impleading De La Salle University as
respondent

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 9

The petitioner is not entitled to claim
death benefits.
• In order for a beneficiary of an employee to be entitled
to death benefits under the SSS, the cause of death 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
contracting the same is increased by the working
conditions.
• It is undisputed that SLE is not listed as an
occupational disease under “Annex A” of the Rules on
Employees' Compensation. Thus, petitioner has to
prove by substantial evidence the causal relationship
between her husband's illness and his working
conditions.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 10

The petitioner is not entitled to claim
death benefits.
• Petitioner relied unqualifiedly on the toxicological
report which failed to prove the causal relationship
between Baylon's work and his illness.
• The Court reiterates in their holding that “while we
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 by the law ignores the need to show a
greater concern for the trust fund to which the tens of
millions of workers and their families look to for
compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases and
deaths occur.”

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 11

The dismissal of the petition for review
is valid.
• Petitioner received a copy of the decision on May
16, 2008. Thus, she had until May 31, 2008 to file
her petition. Instead, petitioner filed a motion for
extension of 30 days within which to file her
petition.
• The Court of Appeals granted petitioner a mere
15-day extension pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court. Petitioner had until June 15,
2008 to file her petition. She filed her petition on
July 4, 2008.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 12

The dismissal of the petition for review
is valid.
• Even if the reckoning point is the extended period, the
petition was filed out of time. CA simply applied the
rule.
• The rule is that failure to file or perfect an appeal
within the reglementary period will make the
judgment final and executory by operation of law.
• Perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is
not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to
do so renders the questioned decision final and
executory, and deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction to alter the decision/resolution, much less
to entertain an appeal.
22/03/2018 Editha Quine 13
The Court of Appeals erred in
impleading De La Salle University.
• The original case title before the ECC is “Estrella
D.S. Bañez v Social Security System (De La Salle
University)” to emphazise that DLSU is Baylon's
employer.
• DLSU was not furnished a copy of ECC's decision.
When petitioner filed her motion for extension, as
well as petition for review, she did not implead
DLSU, but the Court of Appeals in its Decision and
Resolution added DLSU as a respondent, without
however furnishing it copies of the Decision and
Resolution.
22/03/2018 Editha Quine 14
The Court of Appeals erred in
impleading De La Salle University.
• However, the erroneous inclusion made by the CA
appears to be inadvertent and harmless. For
clarification purposes, the case against DLSU
should be dismissed in this case for lack of cause
of action and jurisdiction.

22/03/2018 Editha Quine 15