BARSOLO vs. SSS

Cristina Barsolo Vs. Social Security System

G.R. No. 187950

January 11, 2017

FACTS:

Cristina Barsolo’s (Cristina) deceased husband, Manuel M. Barsolo (Manuel), was employed as a seaman by various companies from 1988 to 2002.From July 2, 2002 to December 6, 2002, Manuel served as a Riding Gang/Able Seaman onboard MT Polaris Star with Vela International Marine Ltd.,.Vela was his last employer before he died in 2006.

After his separation from employment with Vela, Manuel was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and osteoarthritis.He was examined and treated at the Philippine Heart Center as an outpatient from April 2, 2003 to October 22, 2004.When he died on September 24, 2006, the autopsy report listed myocardial infarction as his cause of death.

Believing that the cause of Manuel’s death was work-related, Cristina filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, with the Social Security System.The Social Security System, on June 27, 2007, denied her claim on the ground that there was no longer an employer-employee relationship at the time of Manuel’s death and that is being a smoker increased his risk of contracting the illness.

Cristina appealed her case to the Employees’ Compensation Commission which, in a Decision dated December 17, 2007, denied the appeal for lack of merit.[13] According to the Commission:

Since Myocardial Infarction (Cardiovascular Disease) is listed as an occupational disease under P.D. 626 as amended, Cristina is bound to comply with all the conditions required under Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employee’s Compensation] to warrant the grant of benefits The Commission held that Cristina was unable to establish that her husband’s case fell under any of the above circumstances. The Commission believed that Manuel’s “smoking habits precipitated the manifestation of his Myocardial Infarction.”[16] The Commission added that “the System correctly ruled that the development of the Myocardial Infarction could not be categorically attributed to the occupation of [Manuel] as Seaman because of the presence of major causative factor which is not work-related. Aggrieved, Cristina filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, which was denied for lack of merit on November 19, 2008.

The Court of Appeals ruled that while there was no doubt that myocardial infarction was a compensable disease,Cristina failed to prove a causal relationship between Manuel’s work and the illness that brought about his death.The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission that Manuel’s habit of smoking, which dates as far back as 1973, may have contributed to the development of his heart ailment.

Cristina moved for reconsideration of the said Decision but her Motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated May 19, 2009.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cristina is entitled for compensation for the death of her husband Manuel.

HELD:

The Petition was DENIED The Court has already ruled on the compensability of Myocardial Infarction as an occupational disease. Rañises v. Employees Compensation Commission, is instructive:

The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, Manuel died on September 24, 2006, four years after he disembarked from MV Polaris Star. Other factors have already played a role in aggravating his illness. Due to the considerable lapse of time, more convincing evidence must be presented in order to attribute the cause of death to Manuel’s work. In the absence of such evidence and under the circumstances of this case, this Court cannot assume that the illness that caused Manuel’s death was acquired during his employment with Vela.

Petitioner’s claim for death benefits was correctly denied by the Court of Appeals.