GATUS vs SSS

Gatus = worked at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac = a covered member of the SSS

Later he was confined and diagnosed to be suffering from Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)

Gatus was given SSS Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits

An SSS audit revealed = the need to recover the EC benefits already paid to him = GROUND: 1. His CAD is being attributed to his chronic smoking,2. HENCE not work-related

Gatus contended =1. the disease due to the presence of harmful fuel smoke emission of methane gas from a nearby biological waste digester2. a railway terminal where diesel-fed locomotive engines had "spewed black smoke"3. as well as other harmful smoke emissions which he was exposed to for 30 years

elevated the matter to the ECC = Denied his appeal = Grounds:1. nothing on record established the presence of the qualifying circumstances for responsibility2. it was incumbent upon him to prove that the nature of his previous employment and the conditions prevailing therein had increased the risk of contracting his CAD

ISSUE:WON it was proper for the SSS to demand the recovery of the EC benefits already paid to petitioner Gatus?

HELD: YESThe burden of proof lies upon the claimant to prove that he is entitled to the benefits accorded by law. degree of proof required under P.D. 626 = substantial evidence the claimant must show = at least by substantial evidence that the development of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job1. the illness or the fatal disease was caused by his employment AND2. the risk of contracting the disease was increased or aggravated by the working conditions mere contention of exposure to various smoke emissions in the working environment for a period of time does not ipso facto make the resulting disability compensable RULE = What the lawrequires is a reasonable work connection, not a direct causal relation.

HINOGUIN VS. ECC

Sgt. Hinoguin et al = sought permission to go on overnight pass to Aritao,Nueva Viscaya

Capt. Besas = orally granted them permission to go to overnight pass in Aritao = allowed them to take their issued firearms since Aritao was regarded as a critical place.

Hinoguin et al they went there and as they were headed back = they boarded a tricycle

As Alibuyog dismounted from the tricycle = he accidentally touched the trigger AND shot Sgt. Hinoguin in the left lower abdomen

Sgt. Hinoguin died a few days after the incident

In the investigation conducted = ruled that that the shooting was purely accidental in nature = he died in the line of duty

Life of Duty Board of Officers recommended that all benefits due the legal dependents of the late Sgt. Hinoguin be given

father of the deceased made a claim from GSIS = denied on the ground:1. that the deceased was not at his work place NOR2. performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army at the time of his death

This denial was confirmed by the ECC.

Issue:WON the death of Sgt. Hinoguin compensable under the applicable statute andregulations?

Held: YES.The concept of work place cannot always be literally applied to a soldier on active duty status, as if he were a machine operator or a worker in an assembly line in a factory or a clerk in a particular fixed office. A soldier must go where his company is stationed Though far away from his station = Sgt. Hinoguin et al had permission from their Commanding Officer to proceed to Aritao Having secured lawful permission to be at cannot be very different from a place where they are required to go by their commanding officer. The soldiers were on an overnight pass. They were not on vacation leave.

a soldier on active duty status is really on 24 hours a day official dutystatus and is subject to military discipline and military law 24 hours a day. GR: He is subject to call and to the orders of his superior officers at all times, 7 days a week Exception: when he is on vacation leave status RULE = A soldier should be presumed to be on official duty = unless he is shown to have clearly and unequivocally put aside that status or condition temporarily

the work-connected character of Sgt. Hinoguins injury and death was not effectively precluded by the simple circumstance that he was on an overnight pass to go to the home of Dft. Alibuyog, a soldier under his own command. Sgt. Hinoguin did not effectively cease performing official functions because he was granted a pass. While going to a fellow soldiers home for a few hours for a meal and some drinks was not a specific military duty, he was nonetheless in the course of performance of official functions.