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 digester
2. 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
responsibility
2. 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: YES
The 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 job
1. the illness or the fatal disease was caused by his employment AND
2. 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 law requires 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 NOR
2. 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 and regulations?
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.