Soc Ag Cases.docx

SOC AG: CASES



SIGNEY VS SSS FACTS 





 









Rodolfo Signey, Sr., member of the SSS, died on 21 May 2001. In his records, he had designated Yolanda Signey (petitioner) as primary beneficiary and his 4 children with her as secondary beneficiaries. Petitioner filed a claim for death benefits with the SSS. She revealed in her claim that the deceased had a common-law wife, Gina, with whom he had two minor children namely, Ginalyn, born on 13 April 1996, and Rodelyn born on 20 April 2000. Petitioners declaration was confirmed when Gina filed a claim in which she also declared that both she and petitioner were common-law wives of the deceased and that Editha was the legal wife. Editha also filed a claim stating she was the legal wife The SSS denied the death benefit claim of petitioner. But, it recognized Ginalyn and Rodelyn, the minor children of the deceased with Gina, as the primary beneficiaries under the SSS Law. The SSS also found that the marriage between petitioner and the deceased was null and void because of a prior subsisting marriage contracted between the deceased and Editha, as confirmed with the Local Civil Registry of Cebu City. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition with the SSC in which she attached a waiver of rights executed by Editha whereby the latter waived any/all claims from National Trucking Forwarding Corporation (NTFC) under the supervision of National Development Corporation (NDC), Social Security System (SSS) and other (i)nsurance(b)enefits due to the deceased Rodolfo Signey Sr., who died intestate and further declared that I am legally married to Mr. Castillo and not to Mr. Signey Sr The SSC affirmed the decision of the SSS. The SSC gave more weight to the SSS investigation and the confirmed certification of marriage showing that the deceased was married to Editha than to the declarations of Editha in her waiver of rights. The SSC also found that even if Editha was the legal wife, she was not qualified to the death benefits since she herself admitted that she was not dependent on h er deceased husband for support inasmuch as she was cohabiting with a certain Castillo.



Considering that petitioner, Editha, and Gina were not entitled to the death benefits, the SSC applied Section 8(e) and (k) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282, and held that the dependent legitimate and illegitimate minor children of the deceased member were also considered primary beneficiaries. The records disclosed that the deceased had one legitimate child, Ma. Evelyn Signey, who predeceased him, and several illegitimate children with petitioner and with Gina. Based on their respective certificates of live birth, the deceased SSS members four illegitimate children with petitioner could no longer be considered dependents at the time of his death because all of them were over 21 years old when he died. On the other hand, the deceased SSS members illegitimate children with Gina were qualified to be his primary beneficiaries for they were still minors at the time of his death, CA affirmed decision of the SSS and SSC

ISSUE 1) W/N petitioners marriage with the deceased is valid. 2) W/N petitioner has a superior legal right over the SSS benefits as against the illegitimate minor children of the deceased.

RULING 1) No. SC is not trier of facts so it relied on the findings of the SSS and upheld it. Petitioners marriage with deceased is INVALID. Petitioner failed to present evidence of such and relied on waiver of rights of Editha and petitioner failed to controvert the cert of marriage of Editha. 2) NO. SSS applied Section 8(e) and (k) of RA No. 8282. Here, the minor illegitimate children Ginalyn and Rodelyn were minors. Had the legitimate child of the deceased and Editha survived and qualified as a dependent, Ginalyn and Rodelyn would have been entitled to a share equivalent to only 50% of the share of the said legitimate child. Since the legitimate child of the deceased predeceased him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary beneficiaries of the deceased, are entitled to 100% of the benefits. 1

BARTOLOME VS SSS FACTS 



 



John Colcol was employed as electrician by Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., on board the vessel Maersk Danville. As such, he was enrolled under the government's Employees' Compensation Program (ECP). Unfortunately an accident occurred on board the vessel whereby steel plates fell on John, which led to his untimely death the following day. John was, at the time of his death, childless and unmarried. Thus, petitioner Bernardina P. Bartolome, John’s biological mother and, allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a claim for death benefits under PD 626 with the Social Security System (SSS). However, the SSS denied the claim, stating that Petitioner is no longer considered the parent since John was adopted by Cornelio Colcol, his great grandfather. ECC affirmed the decision of the SSS. Since John was adopted, Cornelio and not petitioner qualifies as his primary beneficiary. ECC ruled: The dependent parent referred to under Article 167 (j) of PD 626 relates to the legitimate parent of the covered member, as provided for by Rule XV, Section 1 (c) (1) of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation. This Commission believes that the appellant is not considered a legitimate parent of the deceased, having given up the latter for adoption to Mr. Cornelio C. Colcol. Thus, in effect, the adoption divested her of the statu sas the legitimate parent of the deceased. ECC also dismissed the motion for reconsideration

ISSUE W/N the biological parents of the covered, but legally adopted, employee considered secondary beneficiaries and, thus, entitled, in appropriate cases, to receive the benefits under the ECP?









then the death benefits under the Employees' Compensation Program shall accrue solely to herein petitioner, John's sole remaining beneficiary. SC held that the term "parents" in the phrase "dependent parents" in the afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in its general sense and cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate parents" as what the ECC did. The phrase "dependent parents" should, therefore, include all parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption. When the law does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, "dependent parents" are parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by adoption,who are in need of support or assistance. Moreover, John, in his SSS application, named petitioner as one of his beneficiaries for his benefits under RA 8282. While RA 8282 does not cover compensation for work-related deaths or injury and expressly allows the designation of beneficiaries who are not related by blood to the member unlike in PD 626, John’s deliberate act of indicating petitioner as his beneficiary at least evinces that he, in a way, considered petitioner as his dependent Consequently, the confluence of circumstances – from Cornelio’s death during John’s minority, the restoration of petitioner’s parental authority (it restored because at the time he was adopted he was still a minor. Parental authority should be with the parents), the documents showing singularity of address, and John’s clear intention to designate petitioner as a beneficiary - effectively made petitioner, to Our mind, entitled to death benefit claims as a secondary beneficiary under PD 626 as a dependent parent.

RULING  

YES. SC disagrees with the decision of the ECC The Decision of the ECC is bereft of legal basis. Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the benefits stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent given Cornelio’s untimely demise during John’s minority. Since the parent by adoption already died, 2