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 beneficiaries
o 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 default
o Denied
o It appeared that another Form E-4 was earlier
filed with a different set of beneficiaries:
Rosemarie as spouse and Elmer as dependent
o Ednas 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 Denied
o 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
Edgardos 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 Edgardos death was RA

8282, the amendatory law of the Social Security Law
o 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 deceasedmember is qualified to be the beneficiary
of the latters 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

Investigations conducted by SSS are appropriate

in order to ensure that the benefits provided
under the SS Law are received by the rightful
beneficiaries
Such measure is necessary for the systems
proper administration, and to carry out the
mandate of non-transferability of benefits

Hinoguin v Employees Compensation Commission

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.

Not noticing that his rifles 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

FACTS

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

This denial was confirmed by the respondent ECC

ISSUE
WON the death of Sgt. Hinoguin is compensable

The three soldiers went to Dft. Alibuyogs home for a

meal and some drinks
o

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

the headquarters

When they reached the poblacion, Alibuyog

dismounted from the tricycle

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:

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 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

(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 stationed

o

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

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
overtime

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
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

RULING

No. Workmens 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

ISSUE

After their evening meal,

supposed to resume work

WON the claim for compensation has prescribed

WON Gutanas death was due to his negligence

they

were

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