SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability
February 16, 2024
The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.
The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).
In 1980, Leonardo became disabled and started receiving his permanent total disability pension from the Social Security System (SSS). The following year, Leonardo married Belinda, then his common-law spouse, with whom he shared a child. Leonardo and Belinda lived together as husband and wife for 28 years before his death on November 14, 2009.
Belinda then filed a claim for survivorship pension before the SSS Diliman, Quezon City Branch, but the same was denied pursuant to Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law, which provides that “[u]pon the death of the permanent total disability pensioner, his [or her] primary beneficiaries as of the date of disability shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension xxx.” [Emphasis provided]
According to the SSS, Belinda did not qualify as a primary beneficiary under the law as she only became Leonardo’s legitimate spouse after the date of his permanent disability.
Belinda elevated her petition to the SSC, but was likewise denied. The CA also affirmed the SSC, prompting the present petition.
Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.
As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.
The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.
The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.
The provision was found by the Court to be “arbitrary and too sweeping as it considers all marriages contracted after the date of the pensioners’ disability as a sham, regardless of the circumstances of the case.”
While acknowledging the Congress’ objective to prevent sham marriages in enacting the Social Security Law, the Court held that the classification under Section 13-A(c) of “dependent spouses” into two groups, through the qualifying phrase “as of the date of disability,” is unreasonable and not necessarily an effective means to achieve the Social Security Law’s policy objective.
“On the contrary, it creates undue prejudice and discrimination against dependent spouses who did not contract their respective marriages to their pensioner-spouses for the purpose of obtaining benefits and who would otherwise be entitled to the survivorship pension if not for the unreasonable classification,” said the Court.
Such is the case for Leonardo and Belinda, whose marriage was contracted only after Leonardo suffered a disability. The Court noted, however, that the couple already had a child prior to the disability. More importantly, they lived exclusively as husband and wife, and their union lasted for 28 years before Leonardo died on November 14, 2009.
“Under the circumstances, the marriage of petitioner to Leonardo cannot be considered as a scheme that she employed merely to enable her to qualify for survivorship pension. To be sure, it was one that was entered into without any semblance of bad faith,” held the Court.
The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.
In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 253940, Dolera v. SSS (October 24, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/
Full text of the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/