Social Security Commission v Azote

FACTS Edgardo, an SSS member, married Edna, and produced 6 children Edgardo submitted Form E-4 to SSS, with Edna and their 3 older

children as beneficiarieso Edgardo subsequently submitted another For E-4

designating his 3 younger children as additional beneficiaries

Edgardo died Edna filed her claim for death benefits

o Rosemarie was declared in defaulto Deniedo It appeared that another Form E-4 was earlier filed with a

different set of beneficiaries: Rosemarie as spouse and Elmer as dependent

o Edna’s children were adjudged as beneficiaries, and she as their legal guardian

But their benefits would be stopped once they reach 21 y/o

Edna filed petition with SSC to claim death benefits, lump sum, and monthly pension of Edgardo

o Deniedo Although Edgardo filed Form E-4 designating Edna and

her 6 children as beneficiaries, Edgardo did not revoke the designation of Rosemarie as his wife-beneficiary

Rosemarie is presumed to be his legal wife NSO records reveal the registration of Edgardo’s

marriage to Rosemarie Edna failed to prove her marriage with

Edgardo was valid

ISSUE WON the designation of respondent as wife-beneficiary is valid

RULING No. Respondent is not wife-beneficiary Law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was RA 8282, the

amendatory law of the Social Security Lawo It is a tax-exempt social security service designed to

promote social justice and provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of

disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden

o Section 8 expressly provides who are entitled to receive benefits from its deceased-member

Only the legal spouse of the deceased-member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s SS benefits

There is concrete proof that Edgardo contracted an earlier marriage with another individual as evidenced by their marriage contract

Edna, without doubt, failed to establish that there was no impediment or that the impediment was already removed at the time of the celebration of her marriage to Edgardo

o She does not qualify under the law to be the beneficiary of the death benefits of Edgardo

o Settled is the rule that "whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence."

SSS, as the primary institution in charge of extending social security protection to make an investigation as may be needed for its proper administration and development

o Investigations conducted by SSS are appropriate in order to ensure that the benefits provided under the SS Law are received by the rightful beneficiaries

o Such measure is necessary for the system’s proper administration, and to carry out the mandate of non-transferability of benefits

Hinoguin v Employees’ Compensation Commission

FACTS Sgt. Lemick Hinoguin was a sergeant in “A” company, 14th Infantry

Battalion, 5th Infantry Division, Philippine Army Sgt. Hinoguin, Cpl. Rogelio Clavo and Dft. Nicomedes Alibuyog

sought permission from Capt. Frankie Besas, to go on overnight pass to Aritao, Nueva Viscaya

o Capt. Besas orally granted them permission to go to Aritao and to take their issued firearms with them considering that Aritao was regarded as “a critical place.”

The three soldiers went to Dft. Alibuyog’s home for a meal and some drinks

o At around 7:00 PM, the soldiers headed back to the headquarters

o When they reached the poblacion, Alibuyog dismounted from the tricycle

Not noticing that his rifle’s safety lever was on “semi-automatic,” he accidentally touched the trigger, firing a single shot in the process and hitting Sgt. Hinoguin in the left lower abdomen

Sgt. Hinoguin died a few days after the incident. In the investigation conducted by the 14th Infantry Battalion, it

was found that the shooting of Sgt. Hinoguin was purely accidental in nature and that he died in the line of duty

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

o However, when the father of the deceased made a claim from GSIS, the same was denied on the ground that the deceased was neither at his work place nor performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army at the time of his death

o This denial was confirmed by the respondent ECC

ISSUEWON the death of Sgt. Hinoguin is compensable

RULING Yes. Article 167 of the Labor Code as amended defines a

compensable “injury” quite simply as “any harmful change in the human organism from any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.”

The Amended (Implementing) Rules have, however, elaborated considerably on the simple and succinct statutory provision. Rule III, Section 1 (a) reads:

(a) For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of an employment accident satisfying all of the following grounds:

(1) The employee must have been injured at the place work requires him to be;(2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and(3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order for the employer.

The concept of a “work place” referred to in Ground 1 cannot always be literally applied to a soldier on active duty status

A soldier must go where his company is stationedo But Sgt. Hinoguin, Cpl. Clavo and Dft. Alibuyog had

permission from their Commanding Officer to proceed to Aritao

A place which soldiers have secured lawful permission to be at cannot be very different, legally speaking, from a place where they are required to go by their commanding officer

A soldier on active duty status is really on 24 hours a day official duty status and is subject to military discipline and military law 24 hours a day. He is subject to call and to the orders of his superior officers at all times, 7 days a week, except, of course, when he is on vacation leave status (which Sgt. Hinoguin was not)

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. (going on an approved vacation leave)

Sgt. Hinoguin did not effectively cease performing “official functions” because he was granted a pass. While going to a fellow soldier’s 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

Visayan Stevedore-Transportation Co v WCC

FACTS Graciano Gutana was a laborer of petitioner

o Undertook the loading of sugar on a Japanese ship After having rendered the usual 8 hours of work, laborers were

given a time off to eat before working overtimeo After such, Gutana had to answer the call of nature, and

did so by the left side of a barge tied along the right side of the Japanese ship

o A raft came along the right side of the barge and bumped it, causing it to hit the right side of the Japanese vessel

Gutana was pinned by the barge against the vessel, thereby suffering physical injuries which resulted in his death

Petitioner shouldered all funeral expenses

A claim for compensation for his death was filed by the widow and their children

ISSUE WON the claim for compensation has prescribed WON Gutana’s death was due to his negligence

RULING No. Workmen’s Compensation Act dispenses with the requirement

of filing a claim for compensation if the employer voluntarily made compensation payments (such as burial expenses)

No. Due to the number of laborers engaged in the loading work, the sanitary facilities on board the Japanese ship were rendered inadequate, compelling the laborers to answer the call of nature by going down a barge tied along the right side of the ship

o It is logical to consider the barge as an extension of the premises where the laborers were working

After their evening meal, they were supposed to resume work

As, because of this, they were not free to leave the vessel, the accident must be deemed to be one arising out of or in the course of employment