CASE DIGEST: GSIS v. Bernadas (G.R. No. 164731)

FACTS: Rosalinda A. Bernadas was a public school teacher at Jibao-an
Elementary School, Jibao-an, Pavia, Iloilo City for almost 35 years. On 3
March 2000, she was supervising her students in a gardening activity within
the school premises when she accidentally slipped and incurred a wound on the
sole of her left foot. Elizabeth Jullado, the school nurse, rendered first
aid.
Months later, a black mole appeared on respondents affected sole, making it
difficult for her to walk. It was later diagnosed as malignant melanoma.
In 2002, respondent filed a claim with the Iloilo Branch of the GSIS for
compensation benefit but petitioner denied the claim on the ground that
malignant melanoma was not among those listed by the Employees Compensation
Commission (ECC) as an occupational disease. Respondent moved for
reconsideration of the denial of her claim.
Respondent filed an appeal before the ECC. As per Board Resolution No.
03-07-594, the ECC denied the appeal. The ECC ruled that malignant melanoma
could not be considered work-related. The ECC ruled that respondent failed to
prove that her ailment originated from the wound she incurred when she slipped
during the gardening activity in school. The ECC found that there was no
evidence that respondent acquired her illness as a result of the performance
of her duties, or that the illness persisted that would establish a causal
relationship between the disease and her work.
The Court of Appeals reversed the ECCs Decision. It ruled that respondents
ailment was work-connected since respondent sustained it while doing a
school-related activity. Petitioner came to this Court for relief via a
petition for review.
ISSUE: Can respondent can claim compensation benefit?
HELD: The decision of the Court of Appeals is overruled. Under Section 1(b),
Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, "(f)or the sickness
and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be
the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex A of these Rules with
the conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the
risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions."
Sunlight, or ultraviolet light in particular, has been implicated as a
probable major factor in the development of melanoma. Some families who have a
high incidence of melanoma are distinguished by the occurrence of multiple and
usually large moles that are atypical on clinical and histologic examinations.
In this case, melanoma is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex
"A" of the Rules on Employees Compensation. Hence, respondent has the burden
of proving, by substantial evidence, the causal relationship between her
illness and her working conditions. Substantial evidence means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.
We agree with the petitioner and the ECC that respondent was not able to
positively prove that her ailment was caused by her employment and that the
risk of contracting the disease was increased by her working conditions. While
the law requires only a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal
relation, respondent still failed to show that her illness was really brought
about by the wound she sustained during the supervised gardening activity in
school.
Finally, we note that while respondent was initially diagnosed for malignant
melanoma, the final pathological diagnosis revealed that there was no tumor
seen on her and that the melanoma was benign. On this basis alone, respondents
claim for compensation should be denied. GRANTED.