Case Digest: Bartolome vs. SSS, G.R. No. 19253, November 12, 2014

               Equal Protection of the Laws | Constitutional Law


Facts:

Bernardina Bartolome filed for death benefits under Presidential Decree 626 (PD 626) with the Social Security Services (SSS), claiming to be the biological mother of John Colcol. John was employed by Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. as an electrician on board the vessel Maersk Danville, which met with an accident resulting in his death in 2008. 

The SSS denied the claim, asserting that John had been legally adopted by Cornelio Colcol, and therefore, Bernardina was no longer considered his parent. The denial was appealed to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC), but both the ECC and SSS upheld the decision. Bernardina's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the ECC.

Issue:

WoN petitioner is entitled to the pension of the death benefits of her biological child despite adoption.


Held:

YES.

The rule limiting death benefits claims to the legitimate parents is contrary to law. The pertinent provision, in this regard, is Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code, as amended which make mentions of the word “dependent parents”. Pursuant to its rule making power, the ECC issued the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, interpreting the above-cited provision, specifically the phrase “dependent parent” to mean as “legitimate parent.” Examining the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation in light of the Labor Code, as amended, it is at once apparent that the ECC indulged in an unauthorized administrative legislation. In net effect, the ECC read into Art. 167 of the Code an interpretation not contemplated by the provision. As a rule Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law. The term "parents" in the phrase "dependent parents" in the aforequoted 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, Rule XV, Section 1 (c) (1) of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation is in contravention of the equal protection clause. To insist that the ECC validly interpreted the Labor Code provision is an affront to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the laws for the rule, as worded, prevents the parents of an illegitimate child from claiming benefits under Art. 167 (j) of the Labor Code, as amended by PD 626. The concept of equal protection, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class. "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."

In the instant case, there is no compelling reasonable basis to discriminate against illegitimate parents. Simply put, the above-cited rule promulgated by the ECC that limits the claim of benefits to the legitimate parents miserably failed the test of reasonableness since the classification is not germane to the law being implemented. We see no pressing government concern or interest that requires protection so as to warrant balancing the rights of unmarried parents on one hand and the rationale behind the law on the other. On the contrary, the SSS can better fulfill its mandate, and the policy of PD 626 – that employees and their dependents may promptly secure adequate benefits in the event of work-connected disability or death - will be better served if Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is not so narrowly interpreted.

Ratio:

Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.

In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.


Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)