SOC AG: CASES  Considering that petitioner, Editha, and Gina were
not entitled to the death benefits, the SSC applied
SIGNEY VS SSS
FACTS
 Rodolfo Signey, Sr., member of the SSS, died on 21
May 2001. In his records, he had designated
Yolanda Signey (petitioner) as primary beneficiary
and his 4 children with her as secondary beneficiaries.
 Petitioner filed a claim for death benefits with the
SSS. She revealed in her claim that the deceased had
a common-law wife, Gina, with whom he had two
minor children namely, Ginalyn, born on 13 April
1996, and Rodelyn born on 20 April 2000.
 Petitioners declaration was confirmed when Gina
filed a claim in which she also declared that both she
and petitioner were common-law wives of the
deceased and that Editha was the legal wife.
 Editha also filed a claim stating she was the legal wife
 The SSS denied the death benefit claim of petitioner.
But, it recognized Ginalyn and Rodelyn, the minor
children of the deceased with Gina, as the primary
beneficiaries under the SSS Law.
 The SSS also found that the marriage between
petitioner and the deceased was null and void because
of a prior subsisting marriage contracted between the
deceased and Editha, as confirmed with the Local
Civil Registry of Cebu City.
 Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition with the SSC in
which she attached a waiver of rights executed
by Editha whereby the latter waived any/all claims
from National Trucking Forwarding Corporation
(NTFC) under the supervision of National
Development Corporation (NDC), Social Security
System (SSS) and other (i)nsurance(b)enefits due to
the deceased Rodolfo Signey Sr., who died intestate
and further declared that I am legally married to Mr.
Castillo and not to Mr. Signey Sr
 The SSC affirmed the decision of the SSS. The SSC
gave more weight to the SSS investigation and the
confirmed certification of marriage showing that the
deceased was married to Editha than to the
declarations of Editha in her waiver of rights.
 The SSC also found that even if Editha was the legal
wife, she was not qualified to the death benefits since
she herself admitted that she was not dependent on h
er deceased husband for support inasmuch as she was
cohabiting with a certain Castillo.
Section 8(e) and (k) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282,
and held that the dependent legitimate and
illegitimate minor children of the deceased member
were also considered primary beneficiaries. The
records disclosed that the deceased had one legitimate
child, Ma. Evelyn Signey, who predeceased him, and
several illegitimate children with petitioner and with
Gina. Based on their respective certificates of live
birth, the deceased SSS members four illegitimate
children with petitioner could no longer be considered
dependents at the time of his death because all of them
were over 21 years old when he died. On the other
hand, the deceased SSS members illegitimate
children with Gina were qualified to be his
primary beneficiaries for they were still minors at
the time of his death,
 CA affirmed decision of the SSS and SSC
ISSUE
1) W/N petitioners marriage with the deceased is valid.
2) W/N petitioner has a superior legal right over the SSS
benefits as against the illegitimate minor children of
the deceased.
RULING
1) No. SC is not trier of facts so it relied on the findings
of the SSS and upheld it. Petitioners marriage with
deceased is INVALID. Petitioner failed to present
evidence of such and relied on waiver of rights of
Editha and petitioner failed to controvert the cert of
marriage of Editha.
2) NO. SSS applied Section 8(e) and (k) of RA No.
8282.
Here, the minor illegitimate
children Ginalyn and Rodelyn were minors. Had the
legitimate child of the deceased and Editha survived and
qualified as a dependent, Ginalyn and Rodelyn would
have been entitled to a share equivalent to only 50% of
the share of the said legitimate child. Since the legitimate
child of the deceased predeceased
him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary
beneficiaries of the deceased, are entitled to 100% of the
benefits.
1
BARTOLOME VS SSS
FACTS
 John Colcol was employed as electrician by Scanmar
Maritime Services, Inc., on board the vessel Maersk
Danville. As such, he was enrolled under the
government's Employees' Compensation Program
(ECP). Unfortunately an accident occurred on board
the vessel whereby steel plates fell on John, which led
to his untimely death the following day.
 John was, at the time of his death, childless and
unmarried. Thus, petitioner Bernardina P. Bartolome,
John’s biological mother and, allegedly, sole
remaining beneficiary, filed a claim for death benefits
under PD 626 with the Social Security System (SSS).
However, the SSS denied the claim, stating that
Petitioner is no longer considered the parent since
John was adopted by Cornelio Colcol, his great
grandfather.
 ECC affirmed the decision of the SSS. Since John was
adopted, Cornelio and not petitioner qualifies as his
primary beneficiary.
 ECC ruled: The dependent parent referred to under
Article 167 (j) of PD 626 relates to the legitimate
parent of the covered member, as provided for by
Rule XV, Section 1 (c) (1) of the Amended Rules on
Employees’ Compensation. This Commission
believes that the appellant is not considered a
legitimate parent of the deceased, having given up the
latter for adoption to Mr. Cornelio C. Colcol. Thus, in
effect, the adoption divested her of the statu sas the
legitimate parent of the deceased.
 ECC also dismissed the motion for reconsideration
ISSUE
W/N the biological parents of the covered, but legally
adopted, employee considered secondary beneficiaries
and, thus, entitled, in appropriate cases, to receive the
benefits under the ECP?
RULING
 YES. SC disagrees with the decision of the ECC
 The Decision of the ECC is bereft of legal basis.
Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more, does not
deprive petitioner of the right to receive the benefits
stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent
given Cornelio’s untimely demise during John’s
minority. Since the parent by adoption already died,
then the death benefits under the Employees'
Compensation Program shall accrue solely to herein
petitioner, John's sole remaining beneficiary.
 SC held that the term "parents" in the phrase
"dependent parents" in the afore-quoted 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, John, in his SSS application, named
petitioner as one of his beneficiaries for his benefits
under RA 8282.
 While RA 8282 does not cover compensation for
work-related deaths or injury and expressly allows the
designation of beneficiaries who are not related by
blood to the member unlike in PD 626, John’s
deliberate act of indicating petitioner as his
beneficiary at least evinces that he, in a way,
considered petitioner as his dependent
 Consequently, the confluence of circumstances –
from Cornelio’s death during John’s minority, the
restoration of petitioner’s parental authority (it
restored because at the time he was adopted he was
still a minor. Parental authority should be with the
parents), the documents showing singularity of
address, and John’s clear intention to designate
petitioner as a beneficiary - effectively made
petitioner, to Our mind, entitled to death benefit
claims as a secondary beneficiary under PD 626 as a
dependent parent.
2