Ortega v.
SSC; GR 176150, June 25, 2008 • Court may dismiss the petition outright for being an improper
Facts:
• Ibarra Ortega is a member of SSS who was granted a partial
permanent disability benefits on acct of his Generalized
Arthritis and Partial Ankylosis for 23months
• He then filed a claim for permanent disability benefits →
denied bec. he was already granted siuch for the same illness
and physical exam did not show progress of illness
• He filed an unverified petition with evidence fr his attending
physician that he is suffering from trigger finger 4th (L) and
thumb (L) and Bronchial Asthma, Hypertension and
Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease → denied
• SSC directed exhaustion of admin remedies and referred the
matter to the SSS Office of the Medical Program Director for
Review → denied!
o NO progression of his illness
• SSC denied his claim for lack of merit:
o Had reached retirement age of 60:
▪ Continue paying monthly contri or
▪ Leave his monthly contri for his fam or
▪ Avail the lump sum retirement benefit
o SSS Senior physician found NO sufficient basis to
warrant his claim
• He then appealed to the CA via Rule 43, filed as a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 and petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45
SC:
• a party should not join both petitions in one pleading. A
petition cannot be subsumed simultaneously under Rule 45
and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, nor may it delegate upon
the court the task of determining under which rule the petition
should fall
• Rule 45 and Rule 65 pertain to different remedies and have
distinct applications
• Rule 45 is the appropriate remedy
remedy, but it proceeded to review the substance
• Quantum of proof = substantial evidence
o his non-entitlement was reached after he was
examined by 4 SSS Physicians
o initial exam – slight limitation of grasping movement
(LR) but NOT enough to grant the benefit since he had
received benefits equivalent to 30% of the body
o 2nd exam – no deformities except for right small finger;
no abnormal limitation of movement
o 3rd exam – no gross deformity, no loss of grasping
power, well nourished = NORMAL
SSS Law:
• Requires complete and permanent loss of use of certain body
part for a number of months
RULING:
• Claims under Labor Code and SS Law are not the same
o LC – work-related disabilities; loss of income due to
work-connected injury
o SS – provide insurance against hazards or risks of
disability, sickness, old age or death irrespective of
whether they arose from or in the course of
employment
ISSUE: WON entitled to total permanent disability given his
angioplasty ops of the hear, coronary artery disease, ischemic
heart disease, severe hypertension and other illnesses?
HELD: NO. Such fact was not raised in the info but only in the
appeal = NO cogent reason to discuss the ancillary issues
Dycaico v. SSS, et al.; GR No. 161357, November 30, 2005
Facts:
• Bonifacio and Elena are common-law spouses who had 8
children
• Bonifacio made Elena and his 8 children his beneficiaries and
retired in June 1989
• He married Elena on Jan 1997 to legalize their relationship
and died on June 1997
• Elena filed application to claim Bonifacio’s pension → denied!
o SSC said that Sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 provides that:
▪ only “his primary beneficiaries as of date of his
retirement shall be entitled to receive the
pension”
o as of date of his retirement, Elena was not the
legitimate spouse nor was his children legitimated
• Elena contended that:
o Not indicated that only legit family members could be
made beneficiaries
o SSS is legally bound to respect BOni’s designation
• SSS: entitlement is premised on the legitimacy of relationship
with and dependency for support
o Sec. 8 defines:
▪ Primary beneficiaries - dependent spouse until
he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate,
legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate
children
▪ Dependents:
• Legal spouse
• Legit, legitimated, legally adopted and
illegit child who is unmarried, not
employed and not reached 21yrs or over
21 but congenitally incap
o Elena was not the legit spouse as of date of retirement
bec. they married only after retirement of Boni
• CA affirmed
• SC required the parties and the OSG to file comments on the
issue WON “as of date of his retirement” violates equal
protection and due process clause
SC: proviso “as of the date of his retirement” is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL tho it was intended to prevent sham
marriages or those contracted solely to enable a spouse claim
benefits
Equal Protection Clause
• Creates a classification of dependent spouses which are both
LEGIT or LEGAL but differs as to when the marriage was
contracted
• Married after retirement are made DISQUALIFIED =
discriminated
• To be valid must satisfy the ff:
o Rest on substantial distinction – NO bec. it is
discriminatory and arbitrary, unfairly lumps all
marriages contracted after retirement as sham
o Germane to the purpose – NO bec. classification has
no relation to the objective which is to provide
meaningful protection to members and their
beneficiaries
o Not limited to existing conditions
o Apply equally to all members of the same class
Due Process Clause
• Outrightly confiscates the benefits due to surviving spouse
without giving them opportunity to be heard
o Not accorded opportunity to disprove the presence of illicit
purpose
o Presumes a fact which is not necessarily or universally
true
• Retirement benefits are property interest of a retiree where EEs
have contractual/vested rights
• Bec. such are mandatory contributions that form part of his
compensation
 SSS v. Davac; GR L-21642, July 30, 1966
Prayer: appeal from SSC Reso declaring Candelaria DAvac as
person entitled to receive the death benefits of Petronilo Davac
FACTS:
• Petronilo DAvac, a former employee of LIanga Bay Logging
Co. is a member of SSS
• He contracted two marriages and when he died, both wives
filed claims for his death benefits
• SSS declared Candelaria as the person entitled pursuant to:
o Sec. 13, RA 1161: his beneficiaries, as recorded by his
employer shall be entitle
• Tuplano contends that the designation of Candelaria is invalid
as she is the bigamous wife and that a beneficiary partakes of
the nature of a beneficiary in life insurance policy pursuant to:
o Art. 2012, CC
o Art. 739, CC: persons guilty of adultery or concubinage
at the time of donation
SC:
• Art. 739 as to disqualification is NOT applicable – Candelaria
is NOT guilty of concubinage as there is NO proof that she
knew of the first marriage
• Benefits accruing from membership in the SSS do NOT form
part of the properties of the conjugal partnership
o NOT transferrable
o Special privilege only
o NOT property earned
• Sec. 21, RA 1792: benefits shall not be diminished
• Settlement of claims is governed by rules and regulations
promulgated by SSC
• If there is a named beneficiary and the designation is NOT
invalid, it is NOT the heirs of the employee who are entitled.
o It is only when there is NO designated beneficiaries or
when the designation is void that the laws of
succession are applicable
SSS v. Aguas; GR 165546, February 27, 2006
Facts:
• Pablo Aguas was a pensioner of SSS who died on Dec
1996
• Rosanna Aguas, his legitimate wife, filed a claim for his
death benefits with Jeylnn as their minor child
• Leticia Macapinlac, Pablo’s sister contested the claim
alleging that Rosanna abandoned the family abode and
lived with another man and that Pablo had no legal
children with her
• SSS suspended the payment of pension
o SS Officer conducted an investigation: Pablo had
no children with Rosanna, Rosanna left Pablo 6 yrs
before his death and lived with Romeo, Pablo was
not capable of having a child
• Rosanna and Jeylnn filed with SSC a petition for the
Restoration/Payment of Pensions together with Janet
claiming to be Pablo’s child
• SSC denied for lack of merit and for having been filed out
of time
• CA rendered a decision in favor of the Aguas’
• SSS filed for recon → CA denied for lack of merit
SC:
• Jeylnn – birth certificate with Pablo’s signature was verified
and authenticated by Civil Registry; born during Rosanna and
Pablo’s marriage
o Art. 164, FC: children conceived or born during the
marriage of the parents are legitimate (presumption of
legitimacy)
o NO showing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of
Jeylnn during his lifetime → her status as a legitimate
child can no longer be contested
• Janet – adopted child but not legitimate because no
papers/evidence to support such
• Rosanna – legit spouse but not dependent on him bec. she
left the family abode and lived with another man from whom
she was dependent upon (Sec. 8, RA 1161)
o "the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the
employee”
• Whoever claims entitlement should establish his/her right
there by substantial evidence
a) SSC v. Favila; GR 170195, March 28, 2011
Facts:
• Teresa Favila filed a petition before the SSC averring that she
is married to Florante Favila who designated her and her
children as beneficiaries
• When Florante died, his pension benefits were given only to
his minor child, Florante II until he was emancipated at 21
• As the surviving legal spouse, Teresa claims entitlement to
his death benefits
SSC: denied! Surviving spouses’ entitlement is dependent on 2
factors which must concur at the time of the member’s death:
□ Legality of the marital relationship
□ Dependency for support
These are affected by separation de factor/infidelity, etc.
sufficient to disinherit a spouse. Although, Teresa was the legal
wife, she was not dependent on Florante due to marital infidelity.
She filed MR but was denied.
CA: reversed! Teresa is the legal wife and the primary beneficiary
entitled to his pension benefits. Her illicit affair with another man
was never established nor corroborated with substantial
evidence. Neither anti-poor nor anti-labor!
SSC contented that the word “spouse” is qualified by the word
“dependent”. Fact of dependency is required by law. SSC’s
investigation revealed that Teresa was separated in fact with
Favila until time of his death. SSC filed for reconsideration but
was denied!
Issue: Whether Teresa is entitled to Florante’s death benefits
under SSS Law
SC: NO.
˗ SS Law Sec. 8 defines dependent as the legitimate
spouse dependent for support upon the employee;
beneficiaries = dependent spouse. The law’s purpose is
plain and simple. A beneficiary must not only be a
legitimate spouse, but also dependent for a spouse to
qualify as primary beneficiary. BASIC STATCON RULE: if
a statute is plain and clearly free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without intended
interpretation. “verba legis non est recedendum”, from the
words of a statute, there must be no departure.
˗ SC finds untenable Teresa’s assertion that being the legal
wife, she is presumed to be a primary dependent. In
Aguas, SC clearly concluded thata wife separated de fact
from her husband cannot be said to be dependent for
support upon the husband. Wife-claimant had burden to
show proof that all requirements were complied with.
˗ Teresa did not present any evidence to prove that she was
dependent upon the support of Florante until his death.
 Merced v. Vda. De Merced; 19 SCRA 423

FACTS:
• Sometime in 1957, Briccio Merced, an employee of
Community Export & Import Co., designated his brothers and
sisters as beneficiaries
• In 1960, Briccio married Columbina and had a son, Briccio Jr.
• Briccio died in 1961
• Bros/sis filed their claim for the benefits
• SSS advised that their designation is null and void and that
the claim had already been granted to Columbina and Briccio
Jr.

SC:
• Choice of beneficiaries was made when he was still single and
his failure to change such was probably due to an oversight
• RA 1161 was amended by RA 2658 which provides that
beneficiaries shall be “those designated as such by the
employee from among the ff:
o Legit spouse, natural children
o In default of such, legit parents
o In the absence of any, any other person designated”
• The right of choice is subject to the foregoing limiations
o Bros/sis may NOT be designated except in default of
the spouse, children and legit parents