Case Digest: Narazo v. ECC, GR No. 80157, February 6, 1990

    Labor Law | Policy and Definitions

• Geronimo Narazo, a Budget Examiner in the Office of the Governor, Province of Negros Occidental, died at the age of 57 due to "obstructive nephropathy due to benign prostatic hypertrophy," commonly known as "Uremia." His medical records indicated hospital confinements for urinary retention, abdominal pain, and anemia.
• His widow, Amalia Nazaro filed a claim for death benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under the Employees’ Compensation Law.
• The petitioner argued that her husband’s sedentary work, coupled with stress and pressure, caused him to delay urination, which led to the development of his ailments.
• GSIS: Denied the claim, stating that the cause of death was not listed as an occupational disease, and there was no evidence linking the deceased's job as a Budget Examiner to the ailment.
• ECC: Upheld the denial stating that benign prostatic hypertrophy is quite common among men over fifty (50) years of age, regardless of occupation.

WoN the death of the Geronimo Narazo is work-connected, specifically if the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the nature of his work as a Budget Examiner. YES

Rule III, section 1, paragraph 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, defines a "compensable sickness" as any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the ECC or any illness caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. The ECC is empowered to determine and approve occupational diseases and work-related illnesses that may be considered compensable based on peculiar hazards of employment. 

Thus, a sickness or death caused by said sickness is compensable if the same is listed as an occupational disease. If it is not so listed, compensation may still be recovered if the illness was aggravated by employment. However, it is incumbent upon the claimant to show proof that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working conditions.

The death of petitioner’s husband was caused by "Uremia due to obstructive nephropathy and benign prostatic hypertrophy," which is admittedly not among those listed as occupational diseases. As per finding of the ECC, "Uremia is a toxic clinical condition characterized by restlessness, muscular twitchings, mental disturbance, nausea, and vomiting associated with renal insufficiency brought about by the retention in blood of nitrogeneous urinary waste products." One of its causes is the obstruction in the flow of urinary waste products. 

Under the circumstances, the burden of proof was upon petitioner to show that the conditions under which her deceased husband was then working had increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death.

To establish compensability under the increased risk theory, the claimant must show proof of reasonable work-connection, not necessarily direct causal relation. The degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence which means such relevant evidence as will support a decision, or clear and convincing evidence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable. To require proof of actual causes or factors which lead to an ailment would not be consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice guarantee in favor of the workers. Although strict roles of evidence are not applicable, yet the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded. 

The nature of the work of the deceased as Budget Examiner in the Office of the Governor dealt with the detailed preparation of the budget, financial reports and review and/or examination of the budget of other provincial and municipal offices. Full concentration and thorough study of the entries of accounts in the budget and/or financial reports were necessary, such that the deceased had to sit for hours, and more often that not, delay and even forego urination in order not to interrupt the flow of concentration. In addition, tension and pressure must have aggravated the situation. In the case of Ceniza v. ECC, 12 the Court held that:

". . . . It may be added that teachers have a tendency to sit for hours on end, and to put off or postpone emptying their bladders when it interferes with their teaching hours or preparation of lesson plans. From human experience, prolonged sitting down and putting off urination result in stagnation of the urine. This encourages the growth of bacteria in the urine, and affects the delicate balance between bacterial multiplication rates and the host defense mechanisms. Delayed excretion may permit the retention and survival of micro-organisms which multiply rapidly, and infect the urinary tract. These are predisposing factors to pyelonephritis and uremia. Thus, while We may concede that these illnesses are not directly caused by the nature of the duties of a teacher, the risk of contracting the same is certainly aggravated by their working habits necessitated by demands of job efficiency."

Under the foregoing circumstances, we are persuaded to hold that the cause of death of petitioner’s husband is work-connected, i.e. the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the nature of the work, so much so that petitioner is entitled to receive compensation benefits for the death of her husband.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission denying petitioner’s claim for benefits under PD 626, as amended, arising from the death of her husband, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.