3R.epublit of tbe !)bthppit1£!

)
~upreme <!Court
:fflanila

SECOND DIVISION

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, G.R. No. 225827

Petitioner,
Present:

PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J. ,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
GAERLAN, and
ROSARIO,* JJ

Promulgated:
BELINDA C. CUE~TO,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISION

INTING, J.:

Assailed in th-~ present Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 is the

Decision 2 dated December 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. ] ,:.0167 which reversed and s~t aside the Decision3
dated February 27, 2015 of the Employees' Compensation Commission
(ECC) in ECC CASE No. SM-19368-0113-15. The ECC Decision
affirmed the decision of the Social Security System (SSS) denying
Belinda C. Cuento's (respondent) claim for death benefits under the
Employee 's Compensation Law of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 626.

Designated ndditional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated Ju ly 15,.202 1.
1
Rollo. pp. 3-24.
Id at 27-34 : penned by .!.ssociate Justi ce Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired member of the Court)
with Associate Justices J\.ina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the
Court), concurring.
Id at 39-43; signed by Chairperson Ciriaco A. Lagunzad Ill and members Brenda P. Viola.
Dionisio C. Ebdane, Jr., C?.rli to P. Roble, Migue l B. Varela and Stella Zipagan-Banawis.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 225827

The Antecedents

Respondent's husband, Maximo M. Cuento (Maximo), was

employed as a motorized messenger by Gold Rush Services, Corp.
assigned at Metro Bank. His last assignment and contract was in
February 2011 until he died on October 4, 2011.4

Meanwhile, O i" on June 15, 2011 , Maximo was diagnosed with a

transcient ischemic attack. 5 While on duty on Oct1)ber 4, 2011, Maximo
app~ared to have suffered from a stroke. He was brought to San Juan De
Dios Hospital. The hospital declared him "dead on arrival." In the Post
Mo1iem Death Ce1iificate, Maximo's cause of death is myocardial
infarction. 6

Respondent filed for death benefits with tlte SSS. However, the
reviewing branch denied respondent's claim. The denial was sustained
by SSS-Medical Op1!rations Department. Thus, respondent appealed to
the ECC. 7

Ruling of the Panel ofECC

The ECC affirmed the denial of the c laim for death benefits. It
ruled that there was no showing that Maximo had been subjected to
unusual strain at work when he suffered from a stroke while on duty. In
the absence of any substantial evidence showing causal relationship
between the fatal ailment of the deceased and his working conditions, it
is reasonable to conclude that atherosclerosis caused the manifestation of
his myocardial infarction. Further, the suddenness of attack is common
in middle age, or elderly men and can be explained by the typical
progress of atheroscl,?rosis over time. 8

Undaunted, re.:;pondent appealed to the CA through a Petition for

Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Comi.

• Id. at 27.
Id. at 70.
" Id. at 66.
7
Id. at 28.
s Id. at 42.
 -,
Decision .) G.R. No. 225827

Ruling nfthe CA

In the Decision9 dated December 17, 2015, the CA granted the

petition and reversed and set aside the Decision of the ECC.

The CA took into account Maximo 's duties as a messenger which

required him to drive around Metro Manila, pick up checks and
documents for delivery to the head office of Metro Bank, and deliver
documents to its branches. His everyday exposure under the sweltering
heat of the sun during the summer season and his exposure to rain during
the rainy season aggravated by his susceptibility to smoke-bekhing
vehicles are enough proof of the strenuous nature of his work. 10

The CA also noted that Maximo was already at risk of myocardial

infarction after he suffered a transient ischemic attack on June 15, 201_1.
Thus, the CA found that the myocardial infarction which caused the
death of Maximo is work connected and compensable. 1•1

The dispositive po1iion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, prem ises considered, the instant petition is

GRANTED. Thi:: assai led Deci sion dated February 27, 2015 of the
Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) in F CC Case No. SM-
19368-0 11 3-1 5 is hereby REVERSED and SET AS ID E. Respondent
Social Security System (SSS) is hereby ordered to pay petitioner the
proper benefits for the death of her husband Maximo M. Cuen to.

SO ORDERED. 12

Hence, the petition.

The Issue

The issue is whether Maximo's myocardial infarction 1s a

compensable disease under PD 626, as amended.

" Id. at 27-34.

w Id. at 32.
'' Id.
" Id at 34.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 225827

SSS argues that the deceased's myocardial infarction is neither

caused nor aggravated by the unusual strain of his job as a motorized
messenger. 13 It avers that respondent utterly failed to adduce substantial
evidence to show that the conditions of the law were complied with. 14
Thus, without proof of work connection, the deceased's myocardial
infarction cannot be declared as compensable. 15

ln her Comment, 16 respondent asserts that the CA correctly

reversed the ECC rlcl ing. She avers that it is undisputed that Maximo
suffered a stroke while working. His duties as a motorized messenger
undoubtedly contributed to the physical effects on his health and body
because of his exposure to constant stress brought about by the traffic
and infuriating fellow motorists. Hence, his job clearly contributed to
Maximo's sickness and eventual death. 17

The Courts Ruling

The petition is without merit.

The death of respondent's husband is due to myocardial infarction

(heart attack) - also known as coronary occlusion or just a 'coronary, '
which is a life threatening condition. Predisposing factors for
myocardial infarction are the same for all forms of Coronary Artery
Disease, and these fc:ctors include stress. Stress appears to be associated
with elevated blood pressure. " 18 Myocardial infarction falls under the
large umbrella of ca~diovascular diseases.

Under ECC Board Resolution No. 11-05-13 entitled "Amending

the Conditions for Compensability of Cardiovascular Diseases~Essential
Hypertension, and Cerebrovascular Accidents Under Annex "A" of the
Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation," cardiovascular disease
is deemed compens·tble occupational disease in any of the following
conditions:

13
Id. at 9.
14
Id. at 16.
" Id. at 17.
16
Id. at94-107.
17
Id. at I 04.
18
GSIS v. Cuanang, 474 P11;i. 727, 737 (2004), citing Luckman and Sorensen, Medical-Surgical
Nursing, 3 rd Edition, pp. 929, 934.
 Decisio n 5 G.R. No. 225827

a. lf the heaii disease was known to have been present during

employm ent, there must be proof th;:i_t an acute exacerbati on was
clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reas0ns of the nature of
hi s work.

b. The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of

sufficient severity and must be fo llowed w ithin 24 hours by the
c linical signs of a cardiac insult to co nstitute causal relationship; and

c. If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being

subj ected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac
impairment durir.g the performance of his work and such symptoms·
and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship
subj ect to the following conditions :

I. If a person is a known hypertensive, it must be

proven that his hypertension was controlled and that he
was compliant with treatment.

2. If a p~rson is not known to be hypertensive during

his employment, his previous health exa1T1;:-:ati on must
show normal results in all of the fo llow ing, but not ,
limited to: blood pressure, chest X-ray,
electrocardiogram (ECG) treadmill exam. CBC and
urinalysis. 19

For an occup:.1tional or work-related disease and the resulting

disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions
must be satisfied:

1. The employee's work and/ o r the vvorking conditio ns must

involve risk/s that caused the development of the illness;

2. The disease was contracted as a result of the employee's

exposure to the described risks;

3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and

under such factors necessary to contract it; and

4. There w,:, s no deliberate act on the part o ~· the employee to

di sregard the ~;afety measures or ignore established warnmg or
precautio n. 20

1
" ECC Board Resolution N ) . I 1-05- 13 (20 I I).
20 Id.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 225827

Applying the foregoing prov1s1ons, and ,Ster a review of the

records, the Court holds that there is substantial evidence to rule that the
death of respondent's husband is compensable.

The instant ,:;ase undoubtedly falls under the above-stated

condition letter 'b' of cardiovascular diseases which states that "th~
strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient
severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a
cardiac insult to comtitute causal relationship."

Respondent's husband was on duty as a motorized messenger

when he suffered loss of consciousness and within 24 hours, he died due
to myocardial infarchon. 21

The records show that respondent's husband had been with Metro
Bank as a motorized messenger for several months and his duties
included delivery of documents to or from the main office to any Metro
Bank branch in Metn Manila. 22 He was deemed fit to work. 23

Daily exposure to the heat of the sun, rain, and pollution are
principal factors tt at cannot simply be ignored in declaring th-=
compensability of tl··e death of respondent's husband.

The Court in Ranises v. Employees Compensation Commission 24

already ruled on the compensability of myocardial infarction as an
occupational disease The Court held:

x x x As :... driver and messenger, he spent virtually his whole

day driving aroL:ad Metro Manila, delivering equipment, collecting
checks, and picking up company guests at the airport and driving
them to designated places. Obviously, petitioner in the performance of
his job, was subject to severe strain :1.nd fatigue and exposed to the
stress and strain of everyday traffic. We thus agree with the Solicitor
General that petitioner 's ailment, being wurk-connected, is
compensable._)r

In the present case, the conditions of compcnsability are present.

11
Rollo, p. 66.
22
Id. at 65.
3
' Id. at 67.
" 504 Phil. 340 (2005).
1
' Id. at 344.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 225827

First, the working conditions of a motorized messenger clearly

involve risks (heat, rain, and pollution) of contracting the illness which
caused the death of respondent's husband.

Second, the stress and strain of plying around Metro Man_ila under
the sun or rain was the major factor that caused the death of respondent's
husband.

Third, prolonged exposure to stress, heat, rain, and pollution is

deemed the main contributor of the cause of death of respondent's
husband.

The only plausible conclusion in the instant case is that

respondent's husband worked under risks of stress and strain that greatly
contributed to his myocardial infarction. A reasonable mind analyzing
the:e facts cannot but conclude that the risks present in respondent's
husband working environment for the entire duration of his employment
precipitated the myocardial infarction that led to his death.

As a final n~te, the Court in the case of GSIS v. C~tanang26

declared that as an agency charged by law with the implementation of
social justice guaranteed and secured by the Constitution- the ECC (as
well as the GSIS and the SSS)- should adopt a liberal attitude in favor
of the employees in deciding claims for compensability, especially
where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-conn ection to
the accident or to the illness.27 This is what the Constitution dictates.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

December 17, 20 15 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G .R. SP No. 1401 67
is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

HEN B. INTING

'
0
GSIS v. Cuanang, supra note 18 at 7'27.
27
Id at 739. citing Nilura v. Employee's Compensalion Commission, 278 Phi l. 302, 308 ( 199 1)
Decision 8 G.R. No. 225827

WE CONCUR:

Ho..J.u.Ji .
ESTELA Ni~ERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

Associate Justice Associate Justice

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of tlie Court's Divisi,Jn.

wl,~
ESTELA M_rPtRLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to SP.Ction 13, Atiicle VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson '. s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.