Leviste vs. Social Security System (Solid Mills, Inc.)

Under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, "sudden cardiac death" is presumed work-related and compensable when substantial evidence shows that it occurred under any of the listed cardio-vascular conditions, including strain of sufficient severity followed within twenty-four (24) hours by clinical signs of cardiac insult, or strain during work by an asymptomatic person whose cardiac signs and symptoms persisted.

Gina Leviste is the widow of Ronald Leviste, who was employed as a Supervisor at Solid Mills, Inc. in Sucat, Muntinlupa City and was a member of the Social Security System. Claims for death benefits are governed by the Employees' Compensation Law, P.D. No. 626, as amended, and the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation. By ECC Resolution No. 432 approved on July 20, 1997, cardio-vascular diseases were included in the List of Occupational and Compensable Diseases (Annex "A"), which establishes a presumption that listed diseases, including "sudden cardiac death," are work-related when contracted under specified working conditions. The dispute concerns whether the death of Ronald Leviste falls within that compensable framework.

Ronald Leviste was a Supervisor at Solid Mills, Inc. in Sucat, Muntinlupa City and a member of the Social Security System. On September 9, 1999, he reported for work on a day shift and timed out at 4:00 p.m. After his tour of duty, he left the company premises and went home to join his family at Brgy. Poblacion, Malvar, Batangas. At about 11:50 p.m. on the same date, he was rushed to a hospital near his residence and pronounced dead on arrival. The immediate cause of death was "CARDIAC SUDDEN DEATH" per death certificate Reg. No. 99-107 issued at Malvar, Batangas. The report of death submitted by Solid Mills to the SSS listed the cause of injury/sickness as "Cardiac Arrest Secondary to overfatigue. Px however does not have any previous cardiac problem."

Gina Leviste filed with the SSS a claim for death benefits under the Employees' Compensation Law, P.D. No. 626. In a letter dated August 9, 2000, the SSS dismissed the claim. It found that Ronald Leviste last reported for work on September 9, 1999 on a day shift and timed out at 4:00 p.m.; that after his tour of duty he left the company premises and immediately proceeded home; and that at about 11:50 p.m. he was rushed to a hospital near his residence and pronounced dead on arrival. The SSS concluded that the circumstances did not fall within P.D. No. 626, which requires that the employee be injured or die at the place where his work requires him to be, be performing official functions, or, if injured or killed elsewhere, be executing an order for his employer. It therefore held the death not work-related and not compensable.

On appeal, the Employees' Compensation Commission rendered a Decision on March 2, 2001, affirming the dismissal. Based on his medical records, the deceased had no previous heart problem. Although overexertion of vigorous exercise may precipitate a heart attack, the ECC found no evidence on record that he was subjected to strenuous or vigorous activities on account of his employment. Gina Leviste then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. She pointed out that the ECC completely glossed over evidence that, due to the nature of his work, the decedent was constantly exposed to harmful elements like fumes and heat, and that at work in the afternoon before he died, he performed an extremely strenuous activity of helping carry a 100-kilo air-conditioning compressor from the rooftop of the three-storey administration building down several flights of stairs and out to a workshop located 300 meters from the administration building.

The evidence she presented included the report of death, in which Solid Mills acknowledged that the decedent died from "cardiac arrest secondary to overfatigue"; the job specification issued by Solid Mills describing the working conditions as six days a week, regular time, and continuous exposure to several disagreeable elements with occasional relief, such as dust, dirt, fumes, grease and heat; and the joint affidavit of Oscar Sanchez and Renato Linga, co-workers of the decedent. The co-workers described the regular work as including dismantling a supply air fan by lifting its huge propeller weighing more than 60 kilos with a chain block, repairing rotary filters that sucked cotton and caused them to be almost rained with cotton, and fixing an oil-cooled IR compressor that left them almost bathed in oil. They also confirmed that on the day of his death, the decedent supervised the repair of a supply air fan and assisted in lifting a 100-kilo air compressor from a building rooftop to the repair workshop, and that they observed him skip lunch in order to rest because he was not feeling well. Gina Leviste's own affidavit recalled that in the afternoon before he died, the decedent came home from work extremely exhausted.

The ECC found this evidence insufficient to establish that the decedent was subjected to strenuous or vigorous activities on account of his employment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. The Supreme Court noted that there was no dispute over the facts and that the CA had affirmed the dismissal merely because the decedent had no heart problem prior to his cardiac arrest.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals decided the dispute in a way not in accord with law and jurisprudence when it refused to consider that the death of her husband was service-connected and compensable.
• Strenuous Work and Exposure: Petitioner pointed out that the ECC completely glossed over evidence that, due to the nature of his work, the decedent was constantly exposed to harmful elements like fumes and heat, and that on the afternoon before he died he performed an extremely strenuous activity of helping carry a 100-kilo air-conditioning compressor from the rooftop of a three-storey administration building down several flights of stairs to a workshop 300 meters away.
• Second and Third Conditions: Petitioner maintained that the evidence she presented established that the decedent succumbed to "sudden cardiac death" under the second and third conditions of Item No. 18, Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
• Evidence Relied Upon: Petitioner relied on the report of death stating "cardiac arrest secondary to overfatigue," the job specification describing continuous exposure to dust, dirt, fumes, grease and heat, the joint affidavit of co-workers describing heavy lifting and exposure, and her own affidavit that the decedent came home extremely exhausted.
• First Condition Conceded: Petitioner accepted that the "sudden cardiac death" did not occur under the first condition and did not question the report of death stating that the decedent had no previous cardiac problem.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Whether the death of Ronald Leviste from "sudden cardiac death" was service-connected and compensable under P.D. No. 626.
• Substantial Evidence: Whether petitioner's evidence sufficiently established that the death occurred under the second and third conditions of Item No. 18, Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
• Presumption of Work-Relatedness: Whether the inclusion of cardio-vascular diseases in Annex "A" established a presumption that "sudden cardiac death" is work-related, and whether the SSS and ECC erred in dismissing the claim for lack of proof of causal relation.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Yes. The death was compensable because the evidence showed it occurred under the second and third conditions of Item No. 18, Annex "A," giving rise to the presumption that it was work-related.
• Substantial Evidence: Yes. Claims under P.D. No. 626 require only substantial evidence, not strict proof; the uncontested documentary evidence established with reasonable probability that the decedent died within 24 hours of backbreaking work and after signs of over-fatigue.
• Presumption of Work-Relatedness: Yes. ECC Resolution No. 432 included cardio-vascular diseases in Annex "A," relieving petitioner of proving causal relation and establishing a presumption of work-relatedness once the listed working conditions are shown.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Under P.D. No. 626, as amended, death benefits are available for work-related deaths. ECC Resolution No. 432 included cardio-vascular diseases in Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, so "sudden cardiac death" is presumed work-related. However, the presumption does not automatically entitle a claimant; Annex "A" requires that the listed disease was contracted under specified working conditions. For cardio-vascular diseases, Item No. 18 lists three conditions. Petitioner conceded the first did not apply. The Court found the second condition satisfied: the strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and followed within 24 hours by clinical signs of cardiac insult. The decedent performed backbreaking work on the afternoon before his death, including helping carry a 100-kilo air-conditioning compressor from a three-storey building rooftop to a workshop 300 meters away, and died at 11:50 p.m. the same day after manifesting over-fatigue. The third condition was also satisfied: it covers an asymptomatic person who, after strain of work, shows signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during performance and whose symptoms persisted. The absence of a prior heart problem did not defeat the claim; it placed him within the third condition. The Court applied Ranises vs. Employees' Compensation Commission. Thus, the death was work-related and compensable.

• Substantial Evidence: Strict rules of evidence do not govern workmen's compensation claims under P.D. No. 626. The required degree of proof is substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion—and claims may rest on probability, not certainty, of causal relation. The ECC and CA erred in requiring more. Petitioner presented uncontested documentary evidence: the report of death stating "cardiac arrest secondary to overfatigue"; the job specification showing continuous exposure to dust, dirt, fumes, grease, and heat; the joint affidavit of co-workers describing heavy lifting and exposure; and petitioner's affidavit that the decedent came home extremely exhausted. This evidence established with reasonable probability, even certainty, that the death occurred within 24 hours of backbreaking work and after signs of over-fatigue. The Court therefore rejected the ECC's finding of insufficiency.

• Presumption of Work-Relatedness: The inclusion of cardio-vascular diseases in Annex "A" by ECC Resolution No. 432 relieved petitioner of the burden of proving causal relation between "sudden cardiac death" and the decedent's work. The SSS was mistaken in dismissing the claim for lack of evidence of causal relation. The ECC and CA correctly recognized that "sudden cardiac death" is considered work-related, but the CA erred in affirming dismissal based on absence of prior heart problem. The presumption arises once the listed working conditions are established. Because the evidence showed the second and third conditions, the presumption applied and the claim was compensable.

• Workmen's Compensation — Substantial Evidence — In claims under P.D. No. 626, strict rules of evidence do not govern; the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Claims may be based on mere probability, not certainty, of causal relation. The Court applied this standard to uphold the claim based on uncontested documentary evidence.
• Presumption of Work-Relatedness for Cardio-Vascular Diseases — Under ECC Resolution No. 432, cardio-vascular diseases were included in the List of Occupational and Compensable Diseases (Annex "A") of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation. This inclusion relieved the claimant of proving causal relation between "sudden cardiac death" and work and established a presumption that "sudden cardiac death" is work-related. The presumption, however, arises only when the listed disease was contracted under the working conditions specified in Annex "A."
• Item No. 18 Conditions for Cardio-Vascular Diseases — For the presumption to apply, the cardio-vascular disease must be shown to have been contracted under any of the following conditions: (a) if the heart disease was known during employment, proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by unusual strain by reason of the nature of the work; (b) the strain of work bringing about the acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within twenty-four (24) hours by clinical signs of a cardiac insult; or (c) if an apparently asymptomatic person showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of work and such signs and symptoms persisted, a causal relationship may reasonably be claimed. The Court found the second and third conditions satisfied.
• Asymptomatic Person under the Third Condition — The third condition covers persons not previously diagnosed with a cardio-vascular disease who, after undergoing strain of work, show signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of their work and whose symptoms persist. The absence of a prior heart problem does not defeat compensability; it may place the claimant within this condition. The Court applied this concept in Ranises vs. Employees' Compensation Commission.

• "Strict rules of evidence do not govern claims for workmen's compensation for under P.D. No. 626; the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus, it suffices that such claims be based on mere probability, not certainty, of causal relation." — This states the evidentiary standard for workmen's compensation claims and was the basis for rejecting the ECC's and CA's demand for stricter proof.
• "There is no question that the high-grade uncontested documentary evidence presented by petitioner established with a reasonable probability - even certainty - that the decedent succumbed to "sudden cardiac death" within twenty-four (24) hours from undertaking backbreaking work and after manifesting signs of over-fatigue. His death took place under the second condition, giving rise to the presumption that it was work-related and therefore compensable." — This is the ratio decidendi on the second condition and the Court's assessment of the evidence.
• "Such view is obviously amiss for the third condition under Item No. 18 of Annex "A" precisely covers persons not previously diagnosed to be suffering from a cardio-vascular disease but who, after undergoing strain of work, show signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of their work; and whose symptoms and signs persisted." — This defines the third condition and rejects the CA's reliance on the absence of a prior heart problem.

• Salmone vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, 395 Phil. 341, 347 (2000), citing Quizon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 87590, November 12, 1991, 203 SCRA 426 — Cited in support of the inclusion of cardio-vascular diseases in Annex "A" and the resulting presumption that "sudden cardiac death" is work-related.
• Government Service Insurance System vs. Villamayor, G.R. No. 154386, August 22, 2006, 499 SCRA 492, 502 — Cited for the rule that while diseases listed in Annex "A" are presumed work-related, not every death resulting therefrom automatically entitles a claimant to benefits; the listed disease must first be shown to have been contracted under certain working conditions.
• Government Service Insurance System vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 170743, April 12, 2007 — Cited in connection with the conditions under Item No. 18, Annex "A" for cardio-vascular diseases.
• Castor-Garupa vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 158268, April 12, 2006, 487 SCRA 171, 178 — Cited for the substantial-evidence standard in workmen's compensation claims under P.D. No. 626.
• Ranises vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 141709, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 71, 75 — Applied by the Court to illustrate the third condition under Item No. 18, where an asymptomatic worker who suffered myocardial infarction after severe strain and fatigue was held entitled to compensation.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural basis for petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari.
• P.D. No. 626, Employees' Compensation Law, as amended — The governing law for death benefits; the Court held that strict rules of evidence do not govern claims under it and that only substantial evidence is required.
• ECC Resolution No. 432, approved July 20, 1997 — Included cardio-vascular diseases in the List of Occupational and Compensable Diseases (Annex "A") appended to the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, establishing a presumption that "sudden cardiac death" is work-related.
• Item No. 18, Annex "A", Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation — Enumerates the conditions under which cardio-vascular diseases are considered work-related; the Court found the second and third conditions satisfied.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Ruben T. Reyes.