Dear PAO,
I believe that my husband’s sickness might have been acquired through his work. After his demise, I tried to claim compensation; however, the same was denied because his illness was not listed as an occupational disease. I was told to present evidence to prove that my husband’s disease has a causal connection with his work and that I should not base my claim on mere probability.
Assunta
Dear Assunta,
As a preliminary, sickness has been defined under Article 173 (L) of Presidential Decree 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended and renumbered, as:
“'Sickness' means any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. For this purpose, the Commission is empowered to determine and approve occupational diseases and work-related illnesses that may be considered compensable based on peculiar hazards of employment.”
There are two kinds of diseases contemplated under the foregoing provision: (1) occupational diseases listed by the Commission, and (2) illnesses caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same was increased by working conditions.
As with any other case, evidence must be presented to prove one’s claim. Substantial evidence is necessary in order to claim compensation for sickness. This is backed by the pronouncement of the high court in Social Security System v. Simacas, GR 217866, June 20, 2022, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen, stated that:
“Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation. There are stringent criteria to follow. The degree of proof required under P.D. 626, is merely substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." The claimant must show, at least, by substantial evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. 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.”
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, you may still claim compensation for sickness even if your husband’s disease is not listed as an occupational disease as long as the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. The quantum of proof necessary for said claim is substantial evidence, and it is not required that you present evidence that your husband’s disease has direct causal connection with his work. Only reasonable connection is required by law. Thus, even probability may be the basis of your claim as long as it can be shown by substantial evidence that the development of the disease is brought about by the conditions present in the nature of your husband’s job.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
