Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 90204 May 11, 1990
MANUEL BELARMINO, petitioner,
vs.
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM,respondents.

GRIO!A"UINO, J.:
This seven!earold case involves a clai" for benefits for the death of a lad! school teacher #hich
the public respondents disallo#ed on the $round that the cause of death #as not #or%connected.
&efore her death on Februar! '(, '()*, petitioner+s #ife, Oania &elar"ino, #as a classroo" teacher
of the Depart"ent of ,ducation, -ulture and Sports assi$ned at the &uracan ,le"entar! School in
Di"asalan$, Masbate .p. '/, Rollo0. She had been a classroo" teacher since October '), '(1', or
for eleven .''0 !ears. 2er husband, the petitioner, is also a public school teacher.
On 3anuar! '4, '()*, at nine o+cloc% in the "ornin$, #hile perfor"in$ her duties as a classroo"
teacher, Mrs. &elar"ino #ho #as in her )th "onth of pre$nanc!, accidentall! slipped and fell on the
classroo" floor. Mo"ents later, she co"plained of abdo"inal pain and sto"ach cra"ps. For several
da!s, she continued to suffer fro" recurrent abdo"inal pain and a feelin$ of heaviness in her
sto"ach, but, heedless of the advice of her fe"ale coteachers to ta%e a leave of absence, she
continued to report to the school because there #as "uch #or% to do. On 3anuar! *5, '()*, eleven
.''0 da!s after her accident, she #ent into labor and pre"aturel! delivered a bab! $irl at ho"e .p.
), Rollo0.
2er abdo"inal pains persisted even after the deliver!, acco"panied b! hi$h fever and headache.
She #as brou$ht to the 6lino 2ospital in Di"asalan$, Masbate on Februar! '', '()*. Dr. 6lfonso
6lino found that she #as sufferin$ fro" septice"ia post partu" due to infected lacerations of the
va$ina. She #as dischar$ed fro" the hospital after five .50 da!s on Februar! '7, '()*, apparentl!
recovered but she died three ./0 da!s later. The cause of death #as septice"ia post partu". She
#as // !ears old, survived b! her husband and four .40 children, the oldest of #ho" #as '' !ears
old and the !oun$est, her ne#born infant .p. (, Rollo0.
On 6pril *', '()/, a clai" for death benefits #as filed b! her husband. On Februar! '4, '()4, it #as
denied b! the 8overn"ent Service Insurance S!ste" .8SIS0 #hich held that +septice"ia post
partu" the cause of death, is not an occupational disease, and neither #as there an! sho#in$ that
aforesaid ail"ent #as contracted b! reason of her e"plo!"ent. . . . The alle$ed accident "entioned
could not have precipitated the death of the #ife but rather the result of the infection of her lacerated
#ounds as a result of her deliver! at ho"e9 .p. '4 Rollo0.
On appeal to the ,"plo!ees -o"pensation -o""ission, the latter issued Resolution No. /('/
dated 3ul! ), '()) holdin$:
;e a$ree #ith the decision of the s!ste", hence #e dis"iss this appeal. Postpartu"
septice"ia is an acute infectious disease of the puerperiu" resultin$ fro" the
entrance into the blood of bacteria usuall! streptococci and their to<ins #hich cause
dissolution of the blood, de$enerative chan$es in the or$ans and the s!"pto"s of
into<ication. The cause of this condition in the instant case #as the infected va$inal
lacerations resultin$ fro" the decedent+s deliver! of her child #hich too% place at
ho"e. The alle$ed accident in school could not have been the cause of septice"ia,
#hich in this case is clearl! caused b! factors not inherent in e"plo!"ent or in the
#or%in$ conditions of the deceased. .pp. '4'5, Rollo.0
2ence, this petition for revie#.
6fter a careful consideration of the petition and the anne<es thereof, as #ell as the co""ents of the
public respondents, #e are persuaded that the public respondents+ pere"ptor! denial of the
petitioner+s clai" constitutes a $rave abuse of discretion.
Rule III, Section ' of the 6"ended Rules on ,"plo!ees+ -o"pensation enu"erates the $rounds for
co"pensabilit! of in=ur! resultin$ in disabilit! or death of an e"plo!ee, as follo#s:
Sec. '. Grounds .a0 For the in=ur! and the resultin$ disabilit! or death to be
co"pensable, the in=ur! "ust be the result of an employment accident satisf!in$ all
of the follo#in$ conditions:
.'0 The e"plo!ee "ust have been in=ured at the place #here his
#or% re>uires hi" to be?
.*0 The e"plo!ee "ust have been perfor"in$ his official functions?
and
./0 If the in=ur! is sustained else#here, the e"plo!ee "ust have been
e<ecutin$ an order for the e"plo!er.
.b0 For the sic%ness and the resultin$ disabilit! or death to be co"pensable, the
sic%ness "ust be the result of an occupational disease listed under 6nne< 969 of
these Rules #ith the conditions set therein satisfied? other#ise, proof "ust be sho#n
that the ris% of contractin$ the disease is increased b! the #or%in$ conditions.
.c0 Onl! in=ur! or sic%ness that occurred on or after 3anuar! ', '(15 and the resultin$
disabilit! or death shall be co"pensable under these Rules.
The illness, septice"ia post partu" #hich resulted in the death of Oania &elar"ino, is ad"ittedl! not
listed as an occupational disease in her particular line of #or% as a classroo" teacher. 2o#ever, as
pointed out in the petition, her death fro" that ail"ent is co"pensable because an e"plo!"ent
accident and the conditions of her e"plo!"ent contributed to its develop"ent. The condition of the
classroo" floor caused Mrs. &elar"ino to slip and fall and suffer in=ur! as a result. The fall
precipitated the onset of recurrent abdo"inal pains #hich cul"inated in the pre"ature ter"ination of
her pre$nanc! #ith tra$ic conse>uences to her. 2er fall on the classroo" floor brou$ht about her
pre"ature deliver! #hich caused the develop"ent of post partu" septice"ia #hich resulted in
death. 2er fall therefore #as the pro<i"ate or responsible cause that set in "otion an unbro%en
chain of events, leadin$ to her de"ise.
. . . #hat is ter"ed in 6"erican cases the pro<i"ate cause, not i"pl!in$ ho#ever, as
"i$ht be inferred fro" the #ord itself, the nearest in point of ti"e or relation, but
rather, @isA the efficient cause, #hich "a! be the "ost re"ote of an operative chain. It
"ust be that #hich sets the others in "otion and is to be distin$uished fro" a "ere
pree<istin$ condition upon #hich the effective cause operates, and "ust have been
ade>uate to produce the resultant da"a$e without the intervention of an
independent cause. .6tlantic 8ulf vs. Insular 8overn"ent, 'B Phil. '77,'1'.0
The pro<i"ate le$al cause is that actin$ first and producin$ the in=ur!, either
i""ediatel! or b! settin$ other events in "otion, all constitutin$ a natural and
continuous chain of events, each havin$ a close causal connection #ith its
i""ediate predecessor the final event in the chain i""ediatel! effectin$ the in=ur! as
a natural and probable result of the cause #hich first acted, under such
circu"stances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinaril!
prudent and intelli$ent person, have reasonable $round to e<pect at the "o"ent of
his act or default that an in=ur! to so"e person "i$ht probabl! result therefro".
.&ataclan v. Medina, 'B* Phil. ')'.0
Thus in Enriquez v. WCC, (/ S-R6 /77, /1*, this -ourt ruled:
. . . Veril!, the ri$ht to co"pensation e<tends to disabilit! due to disease supervenin$
upon and pro<i"atel! and naturall! resultin$ fro" a co"pensable in=ur! .)* 6". 3ur.
'/*0. ;here the pri"ar! in=ur! is sho#n to have arisen in the course of e"plo!"ent,
ever! natural conse>uence that flo#s fro" the in=ur! li%e#ise arises out of the
e"plo!"ent, unless it is the result of an independent intervenin$ cause attributable
to co"plainants o#n ne$li$ence or "isconduct . I Carson ;or%"en+s -o"pensation
Ca# /*1( @'(1*A0. Si"pl! stated, all the "edical conse>uences and se>uels that
flo# fro" the pri"ar! in=ur! are co"pensable. .Ibid.0
Mrs. &elar"ino+s fall #as the pri"ar! in=ur! that arose in the course of her e"plo!"ent as a
classroo" teacher, hence, all the "edical conse>uences flo#in$ fro" it: her recurrent abdo"inal
pains, the pre"ature deliver! of her bab!, her septice"ia post partu" and death, are co"pensable.
There is no "erit in the public respondents+ ar$u"ent that the cause of the decedent+s post partu"
septice"ia 9#as the infected va$inal lacerations resultin$ fro" the decedent+s deliver! of her child at
ho"e9 for the incident in school could not have caused septice"ia post partu", . . . the necessar!
precautions to avoid infection durin$ or after labor #ere .not0 ta%en9 .p. *(, Rollo0.
The ar$u"ent is unconvincin$. It overloo%s the fact that septice"ia post partu" is a disease of
childbirth, and pre"ature childbirth #ould not have occurred if she did not accidentall! fall in the
classroo".
It is true that if she had delivered her bab! under sterile conditions in a hospital operatin$ roo"
instead of in the unsterile environ"ent of her hu"ble ho"e, and if she had been attended b!
speciall! trained doctors and nurses, she probabl! #ould not have suffered lacerations of the va$ina
and she probabl! #ould not have contracted the fatal infection. Further"ore, if she had re"ained
lon$er than five .50 da!s in the hospital to co"plete the treat"ent of the infection, she probabl!
#ould not have died. &ut #ho is to bla"e for her inabilit! to afford a hospital deliver! and the
services of trained doctors and nursesD The court "a! ta%e =udicial notice of the "ea$er salaries
that the 8overn"ent pa!s its public school teachers. Forced to live on the "ar$in of povert!, the!
are unable to afford e<pensive hospital care, nor the services of trained doctors and nurses #hen
the! or "e"bers of their fa"ilies are in. Penur! co"pelled the deceased to scri"p b! deliverin$ her
bab! at ho"e instead of in a hospital.
The 8overn"ent is not entirel! bla"eless for her death for it is not entirel! bla"eless for her povert!.
8overn"ent has !et to perfor" its declared polic! 9to free the people fro" povert!, provide ade>uate
social services, e<tend to the" a decent standard of livin$, and i"prove the >ualit! of life for all .Sec.
1, 6rt. II, '(1/ -onstitution and Sec. (, 6rt. II, '()1 -onstitution0. Social =ustice for the lo#l! and
underpaid public school teachers #ill onl! be an e"pt! shibboleth until 8overn"ent adopts
"easures to a"eliorate their econo"ic condition and provides the" #ith ade>uate "edical care or
the "eans to afford it. 9-o"passion for the poor is an i"perative of ever! hu"ane societ!9 .PCDT v.
&uca! and NCR-, '74 S-R6 71', 71/0. &! their denial of the petitioner+s clai" for benefits arisin$
fro" the death of his #ife, the public respondents i$nored this i"perative of 8overn"ent, and
thereb! co""itted a $rave abuse of discretion.
;2,R,FOR,, the petition for certiorari is $ranted. The respondents ,"plo!ees -o"pensation
-o""ission and the 8overn"ent Service Insurance S!ste" are ordered to pa! death benefits to
the petitioner andEor the dependents of the late Oania &elar"ino, #ith le$al rate of interest fro" the
filin$ of the clai" until it is full! paid, plus attorne!+s fees e>uivalent to ten .'BF0 percent of the
a#ard, and costs of suit.
SO ORD,R,D.
Narvasa Cruz and !edialdea ""# concur#
Gancayco "# is on leave#