SECOND DIVISION
YOLANDA
SIGNEY, G.R. No. 173582
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
-
versus -
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
EDITHA
ESPINOSA-CASTILLO,
and
GINA SERVANO, represen- Promulgated:
tative of
GINALYN and RODELYN
SIGNEY,
Respondents. January 28, 2008
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
Tinga, J:
We are called to determine who is
entitled to the social security benefits of a Social Security System (SSS)
member who was survived not only by his legal wife, but also by two common-law
wives with whom he had six children.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails the
The facts as culled from the records
are as follows:
Rodolfo Signey,
Sr., a member of the SSS, died on
Petitioner’s declaration was
confirmed when Gina herself filed a claim for the same death benefits on
In addition, in October 2001, Editha also filed an application for death benefits with
the SSS stating that she was the legal wife of the deceased.[7]
The SSS, through a letter dated
Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition[9]
with the SSC in which she attached a waiver of rights[10]
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 on May 21, 2001 at Manila
Doctors,” and further declared that “I am legally married to Mr. Aquilino Castillo and not to Mr. Rodolfo P. Signey Sr.”[11]
In a Resolution[12]
dated
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, the SSS Law
which was in force at the time of the member’s death on 21 May 2001, 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
member’s 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 21 May 2001, the youngest having been born on 31 March
1978. On the other hand, the deceased SSS member’s illegitimate children with
Gina were qualified to be his primary beneficiaries for they were still minors
at the time of his death, Ginalyn having been born on
13 April 1996, and Rodelyn on 20 April 2000.[14]
The SSC denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner in an Order[15]
dated
The SSC did not give credence to the
waiver executed by Editha, which manifested her lack
of interest in the outcome of the case, considering that she was not entitled
to the benefit anyway because of her admitted cohabitation with Aquilino Castillo. Moreover, the SSC held that considering
that one of the requisites of a valid waiver is the existence of an actual
right which could be renounced, petitioner in effect recognized that Editha had a right over the benefits of the deceased thereby
enabling her to renounce said right in favor of petitioner and her children.
The declaration by Editha that she was not married to
the deceased is not only contrary to the records of the Local Civil Registrar
of Cebu City which state that they were married on 29
October 1967 but also renders nugatory the waiver of right itself, for if she
was not married to the deceased then she would have no rights that may be
waived.
Petitioner had argued that the
illegitimate children of the deceased with Gina failed to show proof that they
were indeed dependent on the deceased for support during his lifetime. The SSC observed
that Section 8(e) of the SSS Law, as amended, provides among others that
dependents include the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, and has not
reached 21 years of age. The provision vested the right of the benefit to his
illegitimate minor children, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, irrespective of any proof that they had been
dependent on the support of the deceased.[18]
Petitioner appealed the judgment of
the SSC to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Review[19]
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court
affirmed the decision of the SSC in its
The appellate court also held that
the law is clear that for a child to be qualified as dependent, he must be
unmarried, not gainfully employed and must not be 21 years of age, or if over
21 years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently
incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally. And in this case, only the illegitimate
children of the deceased with Gina namely,
Ginalyn and Rodelyn, are
the qualified beneficiaries as
they were still minors at the time of
the death of their father. Considering petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary
and the absence of any legitimate children of the deceased, it follows that the
dependent illegitimate minor children of the deceased should be entitled to the
death benefits as primary beneficiaries, the Court of Appeals concluded.[20]
The Court of Appeals denied the
motion for reconsideration of petitioner in a Resolution[21]
dated
Hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.
Petitioner raises issues similar to
the ones which have been adequately resolved by the SSC and the appellate
court. The first issue is whether petitioner’s marriage with the deceased is
valid. The second issue is whether petitioner has a superior legal right over
the SSS benefits as against the illegitimate minor children of the deceased.
There is no merit in the petition.
We deemed it best not to disturb the
findings of fact of the SSS which are supported by substantial evidence[22]
and affirmed by the SSC and the Court of Appeals. Moreover, petitioner ought to
be reminded of the basic rule that this Court is not a trier
of facts.[23]
It is a well-known rule that in
proceedings before administrative bodies, technical rules of procedure and evidence
are not binding.[24] The
important consideration is that both parties were afforded an opportunity to be
heard and they availed themselves of it to present their respective positions
on the matter in dispute.[25]
It must likewise be noted that under Section 2, Rule 1[26]
of the SSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the rules of evidence prevailing in the
courts of law shall not be controlling. In
the case at bar, the existence of a prior
subsisting marriage between the deceased
and Editha is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner,
who has fully availed of her right to be heard, only relied on the waiver of Editha and failed to present any evidence to invalidate or
otherwise controvert the confirmed marriage certificate registered under LCR
Registry No. 2083 on
As to the issue of who has the better
right over the SSS death benefits, Section 8(e) and (k) of R. A. No. 8282[27] is
very clear. Hence, we need only apply the law. Under the principles of
statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity,
it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This plain meaning rule
or verba legis,
derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the
index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by
the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent by the use of such
words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or, from the
words of a statute there should be no departure.[28]
Section 8(e) and (k) of R.A. No. 8282
provides:
SEC.
8. Terms Defined.—For the purposes of this Act, the following terms
shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:
x x x
(e) Dependents — The dependent shall be the following:
(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member;
2) The legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted, and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not reached twenty-one years (21) of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally; and
3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member.
x x x
(k)
Beneficiaries — The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the
dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate
children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of the member: Provided,
That the dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to fifty percent
(50%) of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided,
further, That in the absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated or
legally adopted children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children
shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the benefits. In their
absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary beneficiaries
of the member. In the absence of all of the foregoing, any other
person designated by the member as his/her secondary beneficiary.
SEC. 13. Death Benefits. — Upon the death of a member who has paid at least thirty-six (36) monthly contributions prior to the semester of death, his primary beneficiaries shall be entitled to the monthly pension: Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to thirty-six (36) times the monthly pension. If he has not paid the required thirty-six (36) monthly contributions, his primary or secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the monthly pension times the number of monthly contributions paid to the SSS or twelve (12) times the monthly pension, whichever is higher. (Emphasis supplied).
Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits
provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial
evidence. Since petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary and because the
deceased has no legitimate child, it follows that the dependent illegitimate
minor children of the deceased shall be entitled to the death benefits as
primary beneficiaries. The SSS Law is clear that for a minor child to qualify
as a “dependent,[29]” the
only requirements are that he/she must be below 21 years of age, not married
nor gainfully employed.[30]
In this case, the minor illegitimate
children Ginalyn and Rodelyn
were born on
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
O.T INGA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[2]
[22]Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635,
642-643 (1940); Gelmart Industries (Phil.),
Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., No. L-70544,
[23]The Union Insurance Society of Canton v. Court of
Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 100319, 8 August 1996,
260 SCRA 431, 440. See also Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104609, 30
June 1993, 224 SCRA 145, 147; Social Security System v. Aguas,
et al., G.R. No. 165546, 27 February 2006, 483 sCRA
383.
[24]Robusta
AgroMarine Products, Inc. v. Gorombaleom,
G.R. No. 80500,
[26]SEC. 2. Technical Rules not Binding.—These rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Social Security Law of 1997 and to assist the parties in obtaining expeditious and inexpensive settlement or resolution of any dispute arising under the Social Security Law.
In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Commissioners or Hearing Officers, which shall be non-litigious in nature, the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of these rules that the Commission and the Commissioners or Hearing Officers shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. (Emphasis supplied).
[27]An act further strengthening the social
security system therby amending for this purpose Republic Act
No. 1161, as amended otherwise known as
the Social Security Law.
[28]Globe-Mackay
Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82511,