Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > December 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21441. December 15, 1967.]

RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ANGEL R. DE GUZMAN, LEON DAGAMAC, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents, BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Isagani T. Garcia for Petitioners-Appellees.

Solicitor General for respondent Social Security Commission.

A. J. Guzman for respondent and appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS; PAYMENT BY EMPLOYER TO INJURED EMPLOYEE UNDER WCA NOT A BAR TO FURTHER RECOVERY OF SICKNESS BENEFITS UNDER THE SSS. — Recovery of compensation for injury from employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Law is not a bar to further recovery by employee of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act (Benguet Consolidated, Inc., v. Social Security System, L-19254, March 31, 1964). Social Security benefits are intended to provide insurance or protection against the hazards or risks for which they are established, i.e., disability, sickness, old age or death, irrespective of whether they arose from or in the course of the employment or not, whereas the compensation receivable under the Workmen’s Compensation Law is in the nature of indemnity for the injury or damage suffered by the employee or has dependents on account of the employment. The nature and source of the two benefits are so clearly different and dissimilar that they cannot be considered alternate remedies.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


In this appeal from the resolution of the Social Security Commission (in Case No. 174) holding it liable for payment to therein petitioning employees, of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act, appellant Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., is raising the sole issue of whether or not payment to injured employees, by the employer, of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes further recovery by the same employees of sickness benefits under the Social Security law.

The facts of this case are not controverted.

On different dates in 1960, Angel de Guzman, Leon Dagamac, Leonardo Santos and Amador de Guzman, employees of Bachrach Transportation Co., Ltd. and compulsory members of the Social Security System, were confined to injuries sustained in the course of their employment. 1 Accordingly, the employer paid them the corresponding compensation for the duration of their confinement, pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 2 However, in addition thereto, the employees demanded for sickness benefits under the Social Security Act. And, when the employer refused to grant the later claim, on the ground that the receipt by the employees of compensation for their injuries barred recovery of further benefits under the Social Security law, the employees instituted appropriate proceeding in the Social Security Commission. On January 18, 1963, the Commission granted their prayer and issued the resolution which is the subject of the present appeal.

Appellant’s argument against the ruling of the Commission — that the subject employees, as members of the System, are entitled to sickness benefits under the Social Security Act notwithstanding their receipt of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation law — is anchored on the following provision of the latter enactment, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 5. Exclusive right to compensation. — The rights and remedies granted by this act to an employee by reason of a personal injury entitling him to compensation shall exclude all other rights and remedies accruing to the employee, his personal representatives, dependents or nearest of kin against the employer under the Civil Code and other laws, because of said injury.

x       x       x


(As amended by Rep. Act 772; Emphasis supplied)

it being contended that the Social Security Act comes within the coverage of the phrase "other laws."

The issue posed herein is not new. In the case of Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. L-19254, promulgated on March 31, 1964, this Court, passing upon the same question, ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To our mind, all that this provision (Sec. 5 of Act 3428, as amended), means is that there should be no double recovery against the same employer for the same death or injury. But this is not the case in respect of social security benefits, because to allow the recovery of said benefits does not mean allowing a double recovery against the same employer. An action for recovery of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act for the employee’s confinement which is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is not a recovery against the employer for sickness benefit. The fact that the law (Section 14) requires that sickness benefits shall be advanced by the employer is of no moment, as the obligation of the employer to advance such benefits is only to expedite payment of sickness benefits. Note that the employer is subsequently reimbursed by the System of the benefits advanced by him in the amounts fixed by the law. Although the employer in the case of sickness benefits bears the burden of 20% of the benefits advanced by him, since the System reimburses only 80% thereof, this burden of 20% is imposed, not as a liability because of an injury which is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but to preclude connivance in, or the filing of fraudulent claims for reimbursement. This 20% of the sickness benefits imposed on the employer is more in the nature of an administrative expense and not really a compensation for an injury."cralaw virtua1aw library

The rationale for the exclusion of social security benefits from the application of Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation law was succinctly stated in the same case as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The philosophy underlying the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to make the payment of the benefits provided for therein as a responsibility of the industry, on the ground that it is industry which should bear the resulting death or injury to employees engaged in the said industry. On the other hand, social security sickness benefits are not paid as a burden on the industry, but are paid to the members of the System as a matter of right whenever the hazards provided for in the law occurs. To deny payment of social security benefits because the death or injury or confinement is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act would be to deprive the employees-members of the System of the statutory benefits bought and paid for by them, since they contribute their money to the general common fund out of which benefits are paid. In other words, the benefits provided for in the Workmen’s Compensation Act accrues to the employees concerned due to the hazards involved in their employment and is made a burden on the employment itself. However, social security benefits are paid to the System’s members, by reason of their membership therein for which they contribute their money to a general common fund. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It may be added that whereas social security benefits are intended to provide insurance or protection against the hazards or risks for which they are established, e.g., disability sickness, old age or death, 3 irrespective of whether they arose from or in the course of the employment or not, the compensation receivable under the Workmen’s Compensation law is in the nature of indemnity for the injury or damage suffered by the employee or his dependents on account of the employment. 4 The nature and source of the two benefits are so clearly different and dissimilar that they cannot be considered alternate remedies.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the resolution appealed from the same is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Name of employees Period of Confinement.

Angel de Guzman May 6 to May 19, 1960

Leon Dagamac June 2 to July 6, 1960

Leonardo Santos April 5 to April 18, 1960

Amador Vicente February 28 to May 19, 1960.

2. Equivalent to 60% of their average weekly wages (Sec. 14, Act 3428, as amended by Com. Act 210 and Rep. Act 772).

3. Sec. 2, Rep. Act 1161.

4. Esguerra v. Muñoz Palma, 104 Phil. 582.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15829 December 4, 1967 - ROMAN R. SANTOS v. FLORENCIO MORENO

  • G.R. No. L-24717 December 4, 1967 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28315 December 8, 1967 - AMBROCIO JANAIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28358 December 8, 1967 - JULIAN G. GINETE v. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18857 December 11, 1967 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. ESTEBAN M. SADANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21520 December 11, 1967 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21616 December 11, 1967 - GERTRUDES F. CUAYCONG, ET AL. v. LUIS D. CUAYCONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21849 December 11, 1967 - LOURDES VDA. DE MAGALONA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22325 December 11, 1967 - CORAZON M. ESPINO v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22471 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLOMON A. LIZARDO

  • G.R. No. L-23508 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLY P. CORTEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23817 December 11, 1967 - FRANCISCA LAZO v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24221 December 11, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24521 December 11, 1967 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS v. RAMON A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25245 December 11, 1967 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO ALILLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28348 December 15, 1967 - BERNARDINO ABES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 546 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINADOR F. FLORES v. LUIS R. LOZADA

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-22585 December 18, 1967 - NICANOR B. PAGKALINAWAN v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22753 December 18, 1967 - JESUS RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23220 December 18, 1967 - CIRIACO INGCO v. BENEDICTO M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23699 December 18, 1967 - JUANITO CHAN v. GREGORIO B. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-21422 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27826 December 18, 1967 - PASTORA GASPAY, ET AL. v. CESAR SANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24510 & L-24525 December 18, 1967 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL. v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23191 December 19, 1967 - GERONIMO G, ESGUERRA, ET AL. v. FELIPE M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22269 December 20, 1967 - AMANDO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23661 December 20, 1967 - JOSE MANANGOL BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. JUSTO BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-24572 December 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 December 22, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22512 & L-22514 December 22, 1967 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21150 December 26, 1967 - AMADO CAYANAN, ET AL. v. LEON DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21577 December 26, 1967 - REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967 - EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ v. JOSE SY CHIT

  • G.R. No. L-23135 December 26, 1967 - MARIANO SUMILANG v. SATURNINA RAMAGOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23764 December 26, 1967 - JUAN SUMERARIZ v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23887 December 26, 1967 - AGO TIMBER CORPORATION v. JESUS S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24200 December 26, 1967 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26947 December 26, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28359 December 26, 1967 - ABDULLAH SANGKI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28395 December 26, 1967 - LILIA PEÑA, ET AL. v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22517 December 26, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23986 December 26, 1967 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. JACINTO CALLANTA

  • G.R. No. L-28349 December 28, 1967 - CONSUELO V. CALO, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967 - PRISCILO G. INTING v. ZOILA L. CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-18649 December 29, 1967 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967 - IN RE: MANUEL TO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-21293 December 29, 1967 - REGINO G. AGUIZAP v. EUGENIO BASILIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21641 December 29, 1967 - MANUEL IBAVIOSA v. BENIGNO TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22057 December 29, 1967 - ROMUALDO MONTESINO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO RULLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BATO

  • G.R. No. L-23773-74 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PINEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-28328 December 29, 1967 - NICANOR C. IBUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967 - AGRIPINO DEMAFILES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20894 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22169 December 29, 1967 - SERGIO ALABAT, ET AL. v. TORIBIA TANDOG VDA. DE ALABAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21309 December 29, 1967 - BERNARDO PICARDAL, ET AL. v. CENON LLADAS

  • G.R. No. L-23504 December 29, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA v. JUAN T. DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23886 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PERIQUET v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28340 December 29, 1967 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.