Dennis Jay A.

Paras
JD-2 BLOCK-C
Labor Law-1

A Commentary Regarding the Compensability of Incomplete Abortion

Accidents happen every day. Everyone can be susceptible to injuries, diseases and
other medical conditions that may arise from the eventualities of everyday life,
especially those whose work or occupation would make them more likely to contract
diseases or injuries that are occupational in nature. In order to provide assistance and
compensation to those who were injured or afflicted with diseases while at the course
of their employment, the Philippine Government responded to that by enacting
Presidential Decree No. 626, which provides for a list of occupational and
compensable diseases.

However, there were instances where some parties would demand for compensation
for diseases which arose at the course of employment that were not listed under PD
626 as an occupational disease. In this commentary, the focus will be on incomplete
abortion, whether it should be compensable or not.

As defined by Black’s Medical Dictionary1, incomplete abortion is a condition where

a part of the fetus or placenta is expelled from the vagina while other tissues are still
lodged inside the uterus. Women who had experienced this condition were reported to
have vaginal bleeding which leads to increased risk of mortality and death if not
treated right away.

One of the notable cases that raised the question of compensability for incomplete
abortion is the case of Carvajal vs. ECC2, where the husband of the deceased had filed
a claim for death benefits for the death of his wife due to incomplete abortion that was
allegedly caused by the act of lifting heavy tax books while working as the Municipal
Treasurer of San Julian, Eastern Samar. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner,
which awarded him with the death benefits of her deceased wife.

Another case of incomplete abortion that was deemed by the Court as compensable is
the case of Ramon Corporal vs. ECC3. In this case, the Court ruled in favor of the
deceased school teacher who suffered incomplete abortion while at the course of her
employment. The said condition was brought about by constant walking of the
deceased in a long stretch of rough road to and from her place of work.

As provided by Article 4 of the New Labor Code, all doubts in the implementation
and interpretation of the provision of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of
labor. This means that in interpreting Labor laws and provision, a liberal construction
shall be adopted in favor of the worker who demands for compensation. There are
1
A & C Black, (2005), Black’s Medical Dictionary, 41st Edition
2
G.R. No. L-46655, August 9, 1988
3
G.R. No. 86020, August 5, 1994
Dennis Jay A. Paras
JD-2 BLOCK-C
Labor Law-1

instances when liberal construction was applied regarding the determination of

compensability of injuries and diseases.

However, there is an exception to the general rule that was laid down in Article 4 of
the New Labor Code. In order for it to be considered as compensable even though it is
not expressly included in the list that was provided by PD 626, the party who is
making the claim should be able to provide some basis that would satisfy and
overcome the question of compensability of such disease.

One of the notable cases that exemplified the doctrine of liberal construction is the
case of Delegente vs. ECC4, where the Court ruled to disregard the medical opinion
that was contrary to the condition of the deceased. In this case, the petitioner was able
to supply some basis in the establishment of work-connection of the disease for
purposes of compensation.

To end, despite the absence of the connection between the nature of work vis-à-vis the
condition of the deceased in both cases, the Court had still ruled in their favor, which
made their death to be compensable. As a result, incomplete abortion, even though not
listed among those that are considered as occupational and compensable diseases had
now become identified as such by way of jurisprudence.

Thus, incomplete abortion has now become one of those compensable diseases under
the law.

4
G.R. No. L-47460, November 2, 1982