Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bar-Questionsdocx PDF
Bar-Questionsdocx PDF
1987
Q: Philippine Daily News prints and publishes The Daily News, copies of which are circulated
through dealers in Metro Manila. These dealers, who are single proprietors exclusively
distributing The Daily News but handling competing dailies for a fixed amount per copy sold,
engage the services of newsboys. These newsboys are given a specified number of copies to sell
every day within a six hour period in the morning. After this period, the newsboys are free to
sell other newspapers or go to school or engage in other activities. Each newsboy is paid fifty
centavos for every copy sold.
As counsel for Philippine Daily News, would you advise your client to report the dealers and
the newsboys as its employees pursuant to the Social Security Act? (1987 Bar Question)
Answer:
The System should not have denied the application for sickness benefits under the Social
Security Act.
The Act in Sec. 14(b) provides that sickness benefits shall begin to be paid only after all sick
leaves of absence with full pay to the credit of the employee shall have been exhausted.
In the case, such sick leaves with full pay to the credit of the employee were exhausted when the
10-day company sick leaves were exhausted.
The remaining five days of the 15-day sick leave under the CBA were to be accumulated
andconvertible into cash when employment is terminated for any cause although the
accumulated sick leaves maybe used upon prior application with and approval of the Company.
These conditions means that the 5-day sick leaves cannot be automatically used. Thus, it could
not be first exhausted before the payment of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act.
Q: Leonardo Marasigan started working for Madrid Development Corporation in August 1984
when it was being organized and had no fixed offices. The company did not ask for his Social
Security registration number, nor did it report him to the SSS. He died a year later, and his
widow filed a claim for death benefits with the Social Security System. While following up the
claim, the widow discovered that it was only in November 1985 when he was reported by his
employer to the Social Security System and the premiums covering the entire period from
August 1984 were remitted. Leonardos widow came to you for assistance. What would your
legal advice be? (1987 Bar Question)
Answer:
I will advise Leonardos widow that as the primary beneficiary, she is entitled to receive the
death benefits from the Social Security System. Leonardo may have died in August 1985, and it
was only in November 1985 when he was reported by his employer to the System. But
premiums covering the entire period from August 1984 when remitted. Besides, according to
the Social Security Act (in Sec. 24), the fact that the SSS has not previously received a report
about an employee from his employer or a contribution paid in his name by his employer, is not
fatal to his right to benefits.
Leonardo had 12 monthly contributions in the 12 months that he was covered by the System
before he died. He, therefore, has not paid at least thirty six (36) monthly contributions prior to
the semester of death which under the Social Security Act (Sec. B) would have entitled the
widow as primary beneficiary to a monthly pension. Nevertheless, according to the same
provision of the Act, the widow, as primary beneficiary, is entitled to a lump sum benefit
equivalent to thirty five times the monthly pension.
Q: Mona Lim, married employee of Realty Corporation, is paid a basic salary and in addition, a
monthly living allowance separate from the statutory cost of living allowance. She receives
quarterly bonuses, which are purely discretionary grants by the management; and, as part of
company policy, gets reimbursements for all transportation expenses she incurs in connection
with her sales duties. Her daily meal allowance is a fixed amount regardless of place of
assignment. The company has been reporting Monas basic monthly salary as her compensation,
which is less than one thousand pesos. When the SSS learned that Mona was receiving other
forms of income, it assessed the company for everything paid or granted to the employee as part
of her compensation.
If you were consulted by the company, what advice would you give your client? (1987 Bar
Question)
Answer:
We will advise Realty Corporation that pursuant to Exec. Order No. 102, compensation is now
defined as including all actual remuneration for employment, including the mandated cost of
living allowance, as well as the cash value of any remuneration paid in any medium other than
cash, except that part of remuneration in excess of three thousand pesos received during the
month.
Given the above very comprehensive definition of compensation, the SSS correctly assessed the
company for everything it paid to the employee as part of compensation, including not only the
basic salary, but also the monthly living allowance, the statutory cost of living allowance,
quarterly bonuses and daily meal allowance which is a fixed amount regardless of place of
assignment.
But the reimbursement for all transportation expenses incurred by the employee in connection
with her sales duties is not part of compensation.
1988
Q: (a) Which Articles of the 1987 Philippine Constitution contain provisions affecting labor?
1989-1994
1995
Q: Big Foot Company of Paete, Laguna, has been in the business of manufacturing wooden
sandals for export since 5 November 1980. On 5 January 1994 it employed an additional labor
complement of thirty workers, two supervisors and two department managers. On 5 February
1994 it hired five carpenters to fix the roof and walls of its factory which were destroyed by
typhoon (uanlng." Who among the aforementioned persons are compulsorily covered by the
Social Security Law and when should they be considered effectively covered? Discuss fully.
(195 Bar Question)
Answer:
Assuming that all of them were not yet over sixty years of age, the additional labor complement
of thirty workers, two supervisors and two department managers were compulsorily covered by
the Social Security Law on 5 January 1994 when they were employed. According to said law,
workers are covered on the day of their employment.
Q: What is the extent of an employers intervention in the compensation process and the
payment of benefits to employees under the State Insurance Fund? Explain. (1995 Bar
Question)
Answer:
The new law establishes a State Insurance Fund built up by the contributions of employers
based on the salaries of their employees. The employer does not intervene in the compensation
process and it has no control over the payment of benefits. Unlike under the Workmens
Compensation Act. employers are no longer directly liable for the income and medical and
related benefits that are to be paid to covered employees if they should suffer from work
connected injury or sickness or death. The payment of employees compensation is now from the
State Insurance Fund which is constituted from the contributions collected from employers.
Q: Is it necessary for an employee to litigate in order to establish and enforce his right to
compensation? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
Answer:
No. All that an employee does to claim employee's compensation, is to file a claim for said
benefits
with the SSS (for those in the private sector) or GSIS (for those in the public sector).
In the event that the claim is denied on the SSS/GSIS level, claimant may appeal to the
Employees Compensation Commission where he may prove the causal connection between
injury and nature of work.
1996
1997
Q: State the respective coverages of (a) the Social Security Law; x x x (1997 Bar Question)
Answer:
(a) Coverage of SSS (Sec. 9, RA 8282) shall be compulsory upon all employees not over sixty
years of age and their employers.
Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for employment abroad maybe
covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis.
Coverage in the SSS shall also be compulsory upon all self-employed persons earning PI, 800 or
more per annum.
xxx
Q: State the respective coverages of x x x (b) the Revised Government Service Insurance Act
and the Employees Compensation Act. (1997 Bar Question)
Answer:
xxx
(b) Membership in the Government Service Insurance System (Art. 3, RA8291) shall be
compulsory for all permanent employees below 60 years of age upon appointment to permanent
status, and for all elective officials for the duration of their tenure.
Any person, whether elected or appointed. In the service of an employer is a covered employee
if he receives compensation for such service.
(c) Coverage in the State Insurance Fund (Art. 168.' Labor Code) shall be compulsory upon all
employers and their employees not over sixty (60) years of age; Provided, that an employee who
is over (60) years of age and paying contributions to qualify for the retirement or life insurance
1998
1999
Q: FACTS: Marvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying services for the members and
guests of the Barili Golf &I Country Club. As such caddy, he is subject to Barili golfs rules and
regulations governing Caddies regarding conduct, dress, language, etc. However, he does not
have to observe any working hours, he is free to leave anytime he pleases: and he can stay away
for as long as he likes. Nonetheless, if he is found remiss in the observance of club rules, he can
be disciplined by being barred from the premises of Barili Golf.
Is Marvin within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System? Why? (5%) (1999
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Because he is not an employee of the Barili Golf & Country Club, Marvin is net within the
compulsory coverage of the Social Security System. Marvin is not an employee of the club
because under the specific circumstances of his relations with the club, he is not under the
orders of the club as regards employment which would have made him an employee of the club.
(See Manila Golf 8t Country Club, Inc. v, LAC, 237 SCRA 207)
Bui Marvin is within the compulsory coverage of the SSS as a self-employed person. (See
Section 3A, Social Security Law of 1957)
2000
Q: Ms. Sara Mira Is an unwed mother with three children from three different fathers. In 1999,
she became a member of the Social Security System. In August 2000, she suffered a
miscarriage, also out of wedlock, and again by a different father. Can Ms. Mira claim maternity
benefits under the Social Security Act of 1997? Reason. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, she can claim maternity benefit. Entitlement thereto is not dependent on the claimant's
being legally married. (Sec. 14-A, Social Security Act of 1997).
Q: The Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Golden Corporation Inc. and the Golden
Corporation Workers Union provides a package of welfare benefits far superior in comparison
with those provided for in the Social Security Act of 1997. The welfare plan of the company is
funded solely by the employer with no contributions from the employees. Admittedly, it is the
best welfare plan in the Philippines. The company and the union jointly filed a petition with the
Social Security System for exemption from coverage. Will the
petition for exemption from coverage prosper? Reason. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because coverage under the SSS is compulsory where employer-employee relations exist.
However, if the private plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may be integrated with the
SSS plan. Still, it is integration and net exemption from SSS law. [Philippine Blooming Mills
Co.,. Inc. v. Social Security System, 17 SCRA 107 (1966): R.A. No. 1161 as amended by R.A.
No. 8282].
2005
Q: Pablo was a farm-hand, in a plantation owned by ABC & Co., working approximately 6 days
a week for a good 15 years. Upon Pablo's death, his widow filed a claim for burial grant and
pension benefits with the Social Security System (SSS) The claim was denied on the ground
that Pablo had not been a registered member-employee. Pablos widow filed a petition before the
SSS asking that ABC & Co. be directed to pay the premium contributions of Pablo and that his
name be reported for SSS coverage. ABC & Co. countered that Pablo was hired to plow, harrow
and burrow, using his own carabao and other implements and following his own schedule of
work hours, without any supervision from the company. If proven, would this factual setting
advanced by ABC & Co. be a valid defense against the petition? (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABC & Co. has a valid defense.
Pablo should be an employee of ABC & Co. to be under the compulsory coverage of the SSS.
To be an employee, Pablo should be under the control of ABC & Co. as regards his
employment. But the facts show that he was not under the control of ABC & Co. as regards his
employment. Among others, he had his own schedule of work hours, without any supervision
from the company. Thus, he is an independent contractor and not an employee. An independent
contractor is not under the compulsory coverage of the SSS. He maybe covered as a self-
employed person. But then as such, ABC & Co. has no legal obligation to report Pablo for
coverage under the SSS because ABC & Co. is not Pablos employer.
Another Suggested Answer:
It is not a valid defense, for Pablo could be considered an employee of ABC & Co. The
elements of hiring, payment of wages, power to dismiss and power to control are presumed
from the fact that Pabio is working 6 days a week, for * 5 years now. Pablo's use of his plow,
harrow, burrow, carabao and other implements and his having his own schedule of work hours
withoutany supervision from the company do not erase the element of control on the part of
ABC & Co. because under the control test, it is enough that the employers right to control
exists. )t is not necessary that the same be exercised by the employer, it is enough that such right
to control exists. (Religious of the Virgin Mary v. NLRC, 316 SCRA 614 [1991])
Q: Atty. CLM, a dedicated and efficient public official, was the top executive of a government
owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). While inspecting an ongoing project in a remote
village in Mindanao, she suffered a stroke and since then had been confined to a wheelchair. At
the time she stopped working because of her illness, in line of duty, Atty. CLM was only sixty
Q: Odeck, a policeman, was on leave for a month. While resting in their house, he heard two of
his neighbors fighting with each other. Odeck rushed to the scene intending to pacify the
protagonists. However, he was shot to death by one of the protagonists. Zhop, a housemaid, was
Odeck's surviving spouse whom he had abandoned for another woman years back. When she
learned of Odeck's death, Zhop filed a claim with the GSIS for death benefits. However, her
claim was denied because (a) when Odeck was killed, he was on leave; and (b) she was not the
dependent spouse of Odeck when he died.
Resolve with reasons whether GSIS is correct in denying' the claim. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The GSIS is not correct in denying the claim, because Odeck was on leave when he was killed.
The law only requires that the GSIS member was in the service at the time of his death so that
his beneficiaries may claim survivorship benefits. Odeck was still in the service. He was just on
leave. He intends to report back to work after his leave.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The GSIS is correct in denying the claim because Zhop was not the dependent spouse. Though
she may still be the legal spouse who at the same time may not have remarried, she is no
longer dependent of Odeck for support. Odeck left her years back. The law defines as primary
beneficiary the spouse who is a legal and dependent of the member for support.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
GSIS is wrong. Anent (a), for Zhop to be entitled to death benefit all that Sec. 21 (a). par. l(i} of
the GSIS law requires is that Odeck be "in the service at the time of his death". It does not
require that death occurs while Odeck is on duty. A leave of absence is in fact a benefit of an
employee who is in service. Therefore, Odeck was "in service" at the time of his death.
Regarding (b) what .section 21(a) provides is an entitlement of "primary beneficiaries", not
dependents. In this regard, Sec. 2 (g) defines a primary beneficiary to mean - "The legal
dependent spouse until he/she remarries xxx". Having been abandoned by Odeck does not
necessarily mean that Zhop no longer depends on Odeck's support. She in fact, needs it all the
more.
2006
2007
Q: AB, single and living-in with CD (a married man), is pregnant with her fifth child. She
applied for maternity leave but her employer refused the application because she is not married.
Who is right? Decide (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AB is right. The Social Security Law, which administers the Maternity Benefit Program does
not require that the relationship between the father and the mother of the child be legitimate.
The law is compensating the female worker because of her maternal function and resultant loss
of compensation. The law is morality free.
2008
Q: Carol de la Cruz is the secretary of the proprietor of an auto dealership in Quezon City. She
resides in Caloocan City. Her office hours start at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On July 30, 2008, at
7 a.m. while waiting for public transport at Rizal Avenue Extension as has been her routine, she
was sideswiped by a speeding taxicab resulting in her death. The father of Carol filed a claim
for employees compensation with the Social Security System. Will the claim prosper? Why?
(6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the claim will prosper.
In a line of cases, it has been held that an injury sustained by the employee while on his way to
or from his place of work, and which is otherwise compensable, is deemed to have arisen out of
and in
the course of his employment Lentejas v. Employees Compensation Commission, SCRA
44[1991]). Carol died while going to her place of work. As held in the case of Alano v.
Employees Compensation Commission (158 SCRA 669(1988]), she was at the place where her
job necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. There was
nothing private or personal about Carols place being at the place of the accident. She was there
because her employment required her to be there.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim will not prosper as a claim for employees compensation will prosper only in the event
of work- connected disability or death and the death of Carol dela Cruz will be considered as
work connected only if it was
because of any accident arising out of and in the course of employment. This was not the case of
Carol dela Cruz. She was not yet working when the accident that caused her death took place.
Q: Assume that in Problem 5, Mario, an RSC member disgusted with the non-payment of his
night shift differential and overtime pay, filed a complaint with the DOLE Regional Office
against RSC and PizCorp. After inspection, It was found that indeed Mario was not getting his
correct differential and overtime pay and that he was not declared an SSS member (so that no
premiums for SSS membership were ever remitted). On this basis, the Regional Director issued
a compliance order holding PizCorp and RSC solidarily liable for the payment of the correct
differential and overtime pay and ordering PizCorp to report Mario for membership with SSS
and remit the overdue SSS premiums.
Who has the obligation to report the RSC members for membership with the SSS, with the
concomitant obligation to remit SSS premiums? Why? (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ordinarily, if RSC is engaged in permissible job contracting, it would be RSC who would be the
employer and, therefore, would have the obligation to report its employees to the SSS and remit
its premiums. (owever, since RSC is only a labor-only contractor and, therefore, considered
merely as agent of PizCorp, the latter (PizCorp) as the real employer has the legal obligation to
report the RSC members as its employees for membership with the SSS and remit its premiums.
2009
Q: Can a member of a cooperative be deemed an employee for purposes of compulsory'
coverage under the Social Security Act? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Q: State briefly the compulsory coverage of the Government Service Insurance Act.
(2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are compulsorily covered by the GSIS pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A. No.
8291.
1. All employees receiving compensation who have not reached the compulsory
retirement
age, irrespective of employment status.
2. Members of the judiciary and constitutional commissions for life insurance policy
2010
Q: A, single, has been an active member of the Social Security System for the past 20 months.
She became pregnant out of wedlock and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that
she would have to deliver the baby through caesarean section because of some complications.
Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes, how many days can she go on maternity leave? If not,
why is she not entitled? (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YES. The SSS Law does not discriminate based on the civil status of a female
memberemployee. As long as said female employee has paid at least three (3) monthly
contributions in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth,
she can avail of the maternity benefits under the law.
Since A gave birth through C-section, she is entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of her
average salary credit for seventy-eight (78) days, provided she notifies her employer of her
pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth, among others (See Section 14-A, Rep. Act
No. 8282).
The same maternity benefits are ensured by Sec. 22 (b)(2) of the Magna Carta of Women (Rep.
Act No. 9710).
2011
2012
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Domestic helpers in the personnel service of
another are not entitled to 13 month pay. th
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The government and any of its political
subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including
corporations owned or controlled by the government.
[Sec. 8 (c), RA 8282]
a. None of them;
b. Either one of them;
c. Only maternity leave benefits;
d. Only sickness benefits.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2013
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2014
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Under RA 7699, otherwise known as the Portability Law, one may combine his years of
service in the private sector represented by his contributions to the Social Security System (SSS) with his
government service and contributions to the GSIS. The contributions shall be totalized for purposes of
old-age, disability, survivorship and other benefits in case the covered member does not qualify for such
benefits in either or both Systems without totalization.
2015
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes.
Provided Luisa has reported to her employer her pregnancy
and date of expected delivery and paid at least three monthly
contributions during the 12-month period immediately preceding
her miscarriage then she is entitled to maternity benefits up to
four deliveries. As to the fact that she got pregnant outside
wedlock, as in her past three pregnancies, this will not bar her
claim because the SSS is non-discriminatory.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
The GSIS is not correct. Luis, a policeman, just like a
soldier, is covered by the 24-Hour Duty Rule. He is deemed on
round-the-clock duty unless on official leave, in which case his
death outside performance of official peace-keeping mission will
bar death claim. In this case, Luis was not on official leave and
he died in the performance of a peace-keeping mission.
Therefore, his death is compensable.
2016
FOR SORTING
Social Security System (SSS) RA 8282
Q: Seventy (70) private security guards of TAPANG SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION,
assigned to guard the mining area of DAVAO GOLD CORPORATION, filed a complaint
against both their direct employer. TAPANG SECURITY, and their indirect employer. DAVAO
GOLD, when they discovered they could not avail of the benefits of the Social Security System
law for the failure of respondents TAPANG or DAVAO GOLD to remit its contributions to the
System.
By way of answer to the complaint. TAPANG claims that there is no employer-employee
relationship, since it has only two (2) office employees whose duties are to monitor their
assignment and hours of work and to pay the salaries under the agency contract of the security
guards from the funds remitted by DAVAO GOLD, keeping a certain percentage of the amount
for office expenses and supervisory fees, the true and real employer being DAVAO GOLD. On
the other hand, DAVAO GOLD maintains that it has no employer-employee relationship with
Q: Don Jose, a widower, owns a big house with a large garden. One day, his househelper and
gardener left after they were scolded. For days, Don Jose, who lives alone in compound to look
for someone who could water the plants in the garden and clean the house. He chanced upon
Mang Kiko on the street and asked him to water the plants and clean the house. Without asking
any question. Mang Kiko attended to the plants in the garden and cleaned the house. He finished
the work in two days.
xxx
Q: Eduardo Serangco. an SSS member for 20 years, died on May 1, 1992. The records of the
SSS show that Serangco designated as his beneficiaries Marietta Uy. wife; Gloria Serangco.
daughter, bom June 30. 1979; and Jose Serangco, son, bom July 16, 1981. On May 10. 1992, the
SSS granted Marietta Uy funeral benefits. On May 16, 1992. Josefa Costa filed a claim for
death benefits alleging that she was married to the late Eduardo Serangco on October 15, 1982
and depended upon him for support. She attached to her claim, copy of a marriage contract duly
certified and sealed by the civil registrar of Pasig, Rizal. Marietta Uy opposed Josefa Costas
claim, contending that she and her children, Gloria and Jose Serangco, are entitled to death
benefits because they were the primary beneficiaries designated by the deceased Serangco.
To whom shall the SSS award death benefits? Why?
Answer:
The primary beneficiaries of a deceased employee are the dependent spouse until he/she
remarries and dependent children.
On the other hand, a dependent spouse is the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the
Q: A is an employee of B who in turn registered A with the Social Security System as required
by law. Unfortunately, B did not remit As contributions to the System. )n the course of his
employment, A met a serious accident requiring his hospitalization.
(1) Suppose he decides to retire from the firm because of the accident, is he entitled to recover
retirement benefits under the System? Explain your answer.
(2) Suppose that he died because of the accident, are his heirs entitled to death benefits under
the System? Explain your answer.
Answer:
(1) A is entitled to receive benefits from the Social Security System even if his employer did
not remit As contribution to the System because the Social Security Law provides in Sec. b that
the failure or refusal of the employer to pay or remit contributions shall not prejudice the right
of the covered employee to the benefits of the coverage.
But A is not entitled to retirement benefits in the form of a monthly pension unless at the time of
the accident, he has reached the age of sixty years and has paid at least 120 monthly
contributions prior to the semester of the accident. (Sec. 12-B, Social Security Law).
(2) The heirs are not entitled, but his primary beneficiaries or in the absence of primary
beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries are entitled.
Q: Pedro Tortilla and his employer were covered by the Social Security System. Tortilla was
legally married to Orpha de la Cruz, a plain housewife with whom he had two minor, unmarried
and unemployed children. But for two years, he had been living with his common-law wife,
Dora Tea, with whom he had two minor, unmarried and unemployed children. His jobless father
stayed with him. In his SSS record, he designated as beneficiary his best friend, a 20- year-old
student who was totally dependent on him for support. In a car accident. Tortilla, Orpha de la
Cruz and their two children died.
Who are entitled to the death benefits?
Q: Efrenia Reyes was a classroom teacher assigned by the Department of Education. Culture
and Sports (DECS) in Panitan, Capiz. She has been in the government service since 1951 up to
November. 1985 when she retired at 55 due to poor health.
In March, 1982, while she was teaching her Grade 1 pupils the proper way of scrubbing and
sweeping the floor, she accidentally slipped. Herback hit the edge of a desk. She later
complained of weak lower extremities and difficulty in walking. After an X-ray examination,
she was found to be suffering from Pott's disease and was advised to undergo an operation. In
1985, she filed with the GSIS a claim for disability benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626,
as amended. The GSIS granted the claim and awarded Efrenia permanent partial disability
benefits.
After she underwent a surgical operation on her spine in November. 1985, her condition
worsened.
In 1990, Efrenia filed with the GSIS a petition for conversion of her disability status to
permanent total disabilities with corresponding adjustment of benefits. GSIS denied the claim
stating that after Efrenia's retirement, any progression of her ailment is no longer compensable.
Is the GSIS correct in denying the claim. Explain.
Answer:
Considering that the disability of Reyes is work connected the provisions of the Labor Code
dealing with employees compensation should determine her right to benefits.
According to said provisions, if any employee under permanent partial disability suffers another
injury which results in a compensable disability greater than the previous injury, the State
Insurance Fund shall be liable for the income benefit of the new disability even after her
retirement. Was Reyes still an employee for the purpose of applying the above provision of the
Labor Code? Liberally construing said provision, Reyes may be considered still as an employee
so that she could receive additional benefits for the progression of her ailment.
Alternative Answers:
a) No. When an employee is constrained to retire at an early age due to his illness and the
illness persists even after retirement, resulting in his continued unemployment, such condition
amounts to total disability which should entitle him to the maximum benefits allowed by law.
Her disability which should entitle her to the maximum falls within the definition of permanent
total disability.
b) No, the GSIS erred in denying the claim. Note,.that the original claim and grant of benefits
was based on Presidential Decree No. 626, or Book IV, Title II of the Labor Code: Employees
Compensation and State Insurance Fund. The same law does not provide for separation fee from
employment as a basis for denial of benefits. The worsening of the school teachers condition is
a direct result, or a continuing result of the first
Q: Juan Sipay was elected councilor of the municipality of San Felipe. On the second year of
his term, he left his legitimate wife. Josefa Asuwa, and their three minor, unmarried and
unemployed children and lived with a common-law wife, Maria Makupad, with whom he had
two minor, unmarried and unemployed children. Immediately after he completed his term. Juan
was appointed cashier in the office of the municipal treasurer of San Felipe. He was
dishonorably discharged from the service upon being convicted of malversation of public funds.
A year later, he died.
Who are entitled to the GSIS survivorship benefits?
Answer:
None. When Sipay was dishonorably discharged from the service, having been convicted of
malversation of public funds, he automatically forfeited his right to the benefits that he or his
beneficiaries could have been entitled to received from the GS)S. Thus, Sipays death did not
give rise to any right to survivorship benefits.