Dycaico Vs SSS

Dycaico v. SSS (G.R. No.
161357, June 6, 2006)

Background: The Social Security System (SSS) and Social Security Commission (SSC) filed
their respective motions for reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision dated November 30,
2005.
Facts:
Bonifacio Dycaico became a member of the SSS on January 24, 1980. In his selfemployed data record, he named Elena P. Dycaico and their 8 children as beneficiaries. At that
time, Bonifacio and Elena were living together but were not married. Bonifacio retired on June
1989. He then began receiving his monthly pension since then until he passed away on June
19, 1997. A few months before he died, or on January 6, 1997, only then he married the
petitioner. Upon Bonifacio's death, the petitioner filed with the SSS an application for survivor's
pension. Her application was denied on the ground that under Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282, she
could not be considered a primary beneficiary of Bonifacio as of the date of his retirement.
In the November 2005 decision, the proviso "as of the date of his retirement" was struck
down for violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. SC ruled
that the proviso violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it impermissibly
discriminates against those dependent spouses whose respective marriages to the SSS
members were contracted after the latter's retirement. Accordingly, the SC ruled that the SSS
cannot deny the claim of petitioner Elena P. Dycaico for survivors pension on the basis of this
invalid proviso.
SSS filed its Motion for Reconsideration, stating the the possibility of some unscrupulous
members who might contract spurious marriage after the contingency (retirement) to enable
their spouse[s] to claim the benefits under RA 8282. SSS also argued that, like the beneficiary in
a life insurance policy, the beneficiary must have an insurable interest upon the occurrence of
the contingency. In the case of the petitioner, she was only the common-law spouse of Bonifacio
when he retired, which was the contingent event, according to the SSS, and, therefore, no
insurable interest existed.
On the other hand, the SSC contends that the proviso does not violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution because it is applied uniformly and equally to all dependent
spouses of SSS members who contracted their respective marriages after the latter's
retirement. Furthermore, the SSC adds that RA 8282 respects the sanctity of marriage as an
institution and, consequently, provides that only the legitimate spouse is classified and is entitled
to support. The petitioner could not have qualified as a primary beneficiary notwithstanding her
designation as such by Bonifacio because she was not his legal spouse at that time.
Issue:
Whether or not Elena Dycaico is considered a beneficiary?
Held: Yes. Motions for Reconsideration are bereft of merit.
Ratio:
The burden is on the SSS to prove that marriages contracted after retirement were so
entered for an illicit purpose or solely for the purpose of receiving the benefits under RA 8282.
The outright disqualification of surviving spouses whose respective marriages to the SSS
members were valid, although contracted after the latter's retirement, from entitlement to the
survivorship pension by reason of the proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12B(d) is repugnant not only to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution,
but also to its social justice policy.
SSS and SSC pointed out the fact that Bonifacio designated the petitioner as one of his
beneficiaries, together with their children, they were not married at that time, hence the
designation is void. However, it should be pointed out that the petitioner's entitlement to the
survivor's pension does not arise from such designation. Rather, her entitlement to survivorship
pension is based on the fact that, at the time of Bonifacio's death, she was his dependent
spouse. In other words, regardless of the said invalid designation, the petitioner was the
dependent spouse of Bonifacio by reason of their valid marriage to each other.
At the time when the contingency occurred, in this case, Bonifacio's death, the
petitioner was his primary beneficiary following Section 8(k) of RA 8282.
Relying on Davac, the SSS and SSC disagree with the Court's characterization of the
retirement benefits and survivorship pension as property interest falling within the ambit of the
due process clause of the Constitution. The SSS and SSC have clearly misread Davac. A
careful perusal thereof reveals that the Court therein merely declared that death benefits do
not form part of the conjugal partnership of the covered member. It did not, in any way,
make any pronouncement that death benefits are not considered property interest.
Retirement and death benefits, including the survivor's pension, in RA 8282 are
property interest protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. As the
dependent spouse of Bonifacio entitled by law to receive support from him, the petitioner has
indubitably acquired a property interest in the survivor's pension. As such, compassion for
the petitioner in this case is not a dole out but a right.

Dycaico Vs SSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dycaico Vs SSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dycaico Vs SSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dycaico v. SSS (G.R. No.

161357, June 6, 2006)

You might also like