Clemente vs.

GSIS
G.R. No. L-47521, July 31, 1987

Facts:

Petitioner's husband, the late Pedro Clemente, was for ten (10) years a janitor in the
Department of Health (Dagupan City), assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic,
Laoag City. He was hospitalized from November 3 to 14, 1976 at the Central Luzon
Sanitarium due to his ailment of "nephritis". He was also found to be suffering from
such ailments as portal cirrhosis and leprosy, otherwise known as Hansen's
Disease.

On November 14, 1976, Clemente died of uremia due to nephritis. Thereafter,

petitioner filed with the GSIS a claim for employees' compensation under the Labor
Code, as amended. The GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner because the
ailments of her husband are not occupational diseases taking into consideration the
nature of his work and/or (sic) or were not in the least causally related to his duties
and conditions of work.

Petitioner requested for reconsideration of the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that
the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of employment and were
aggravated by the nature of his work. Petitioner alleged that her husband, as janitor
of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, worked in direct contact with persons suffering from
different skin diseases and was exposed to obnoxious dusts and other dirt which
contributed to his ailment of Hansen's disease.

GSIS forwarded the records of the petitioner' claim for review by the ECC. ECC
affirmed the GSIS' action of denial and rendered its own decision dismissing
petitioner's claim. ECC's decision was anchored upon the findings that the ailments
are not listed as occupational diseases; that there was no substantial evidence of
causal connection; and that, in fact, the evidence was that the deceased had already
contracted the Hansen's disease before his employment.

As the illnesses of the deceased are admittedly, not listed under Annex "A" of the
Rules as occupational diseases, the petitioner bases her claim under the theory of
increased risk. She alleges that the deceased, as janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin
Clinic, was exposed to patients suffering from various kinds of skin diseases,
including Hansen's disease or leprosy. She avers that for ten years, the deceased
had to clean the clinic and its surroundings and to freely mix with its patients. She
claims that it was during this time that he was attacked by other dreadful diseases
such as uremia, cancer of the liver, and nephritis.

Issue:

Whether or not Nephritis can be considered as a ground for compensation due to the
nature of work.
Held:

Yes. We note that the major ailments of the deceased, i.e. nephritis, leprosy, etc.,
could be traced from bacterial and viral infections. In the case of leprosy, it is known
that the source of infection is the discharge from lesions of persons with active
cases. It is believed that the bacillus enters the body through the skin or through the
mucous membrane of the nose and throat.

The husband of the petitioner worked in a skin clinic. As janitor of the Ilocos Norte
Skin Clinic, Mr. Clemente was exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial
diseases. He had to clean the clinic itself where patients with different illnesses come
and go. He had to put in order the hospital equipment that had been used. He had to
dispose of garbage and wastes that accumulated in the course of each working day.
He was the employee most exposed to the dangerous concentration of infected
materials, and not being a medical practitioner, least likely to know how to avoid
infection. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's working
conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the aforementioned
ailments.

This Court has held in appropriate cases that the conservative posture of the
respondents is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and
the social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor of the workers. It
clashes with the injunction in the Labor Code (Article 4, New Labor Code) that, as a
rule, doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimant-employee.