Scribd
Upload
226 views2 pages

Bonifacio vs. GSIS: Compensation Denied

The petitioner Juan Bonifacio filed a claim for death benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) after his wife Lourdes Bonifacio, a teacher, died of breast cancer that had metastasized to her gastrointestinal tract and lungs. The GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission denied the claim on the grounds that breast cancer is not an occupational disease specific to teaching. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that for an illness to be compensable under the Labor Code, it must be an accepted occupational disease listed by the Employees Compensation Commission, or the claimant must prove the risk of contracting the illness was increased by working conditions. As breast cancer is not an accepted occupational disease for teachers, and the petitioner

Uploaded by

Emmanuel Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
226 views2 pages

Bonifacio vs. GSIS: Compensation Denied

The petitioner Juan Bonifacio filed a claim for death benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) after his wife Lourdes Bonifacio, a teacher, died of breast cancer that had metastasized to her gastrointestinal tract and lungs. The GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission denied the claim on the grounds that breast cancer is not an occupational disease specific to teaching. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that for an illness to be compensable under the Labor Code, it must be an accepted occupational disease listed by the Employees Compensation Commission, or the claimant must prove the risk of contracting the illness was increased by working conditions. As breast cancer is not an accepted occupational disease for teachers, and the petitioner

Uploaded by

Emmanuel Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Details and Decision

G.R. No.

L-62207 December 15, 1986

146 SCRA 276

JUAN BONIFACIO vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM


Facts:
The late Lourdes Bonifacio was a classroom teacher assigned to the district of Bagamanoc, Division of
Catanduanes, Ministry of Education and Culture from August, 1965 until she contracted carcinoma of the
breast with metastases to the gastrointestinal tract and lungs which caused her death on October 5, 1978.
Dra. Corazon Yabes-Almirante of the Ospital ng Bagong Lipunan certified that the late Lourdes Bonifacio
underwent radical mastectomy for cancer of the breast in 1973. In 1976, when her ailment was noted to
have metastasized to her abdomen, she submitted herself to an operation known as "exploratory
laparotomy" in March of the same year. On September 1, 1978, she complained of "abdominal pain,
abdominal enlargement, vomiting, and failure to pass stools inspite of laxatives." Upon operation it was
found that her entire gastrointestinal tract was enveloped by carcinoma. Despite chemotherapy, she died
on October 5, 1978 from carcinoma of the breast metastatic to gastrointestinal tract and lungs.
Thereafter a claim for death benefits under P.D. No. 626, as amended, was filed by petitioner with the
GSIS. The same was however denied on the ground that the decedent's principal ailment, carcinoma of
the breast with metastases to gastrointestinal tract and lungs, is not an occupational disease for her
particular work as a teacher, nor is the risk of contracting said disease increased by her working
conditions.
The Employees Compensation Commission, on appeal affirmed the decision of the respondent System.
Issue: WON Bonifacios case of breast cancer is classified as an Occupational Disease
Held:
GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission did not err in denying petitioner's claim.
A compensable sickness means "any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the
Employees Compensation Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof by the
employee 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." [Art. 167(1) Labor
Code as amended by P.D. No. 1368, effective May 1, 1978].
Thus, for the sickness or the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the
result of an accepted occupational disease fisted by the Employees Compensation Commission [Annex
"A" of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation], or any other sickness caused by employment
subject to proof by claimant that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. [Sec.
1, Rule 11, Amended Rules on Employees Compensation].
With this legal presumption in the old law, the burden of proof shifts to the employer and the employee no
longer suffers the burden of showing causation. Under the present Labor Code, the "latitudinarian or
expansive application of the Workmen's Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker" no longer

prevails as the burden of showing proof of causation has shifted back to the employee particularly in
cases of sickness or injuries which are not accepted or listed as occupational by the Employees
Compensation Commission. As stated in Sulit vs. Employees Compensation Commission [supra] "the
Labor Code abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by
the nature of the employment."
While we do not dispute petitioner's contention that under the law, in case of doubt in the implementation
and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations,
the doubt shall be resolved in favor of the laborer, we find that the same has no application in this case
since the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code leave no room for doubt either in their interpretation or
application.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and the decisions of the GSIS and the Employees Compensation
Commission denying the claim are affirmed. No costs.

G.R. No. L-62207 December 15, 1986 146 SCRA 276 JUAN BONIFACIO vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM Facts: The lat
prevails as the burden of showing proof of causation has shifted back to the employee particularly in cases of sickness or i

You might also like