SC ruling favors spouse in pension case

SC ruling favors spouse in pension case

MANILA, Philippines — Should a spouse who marries a member of the Social Security System (SSS) after the latter suffers a total and permanent disability qualify for a survivorship pension? Or should a provision of the social security law that says only the primary beneficiaries ‘as of the date of disability’ shall be entitled to receive a monthly pension prevail

These were the questions that the Supreme Court (SC) settled when it ruled that a surviving spouse is entitled to an SSS survivorship pension even if the marriage was contracted after the member was disabled.

In a decision promulgated on Oct. 24, 2023 but released only on Friday, the SC en banc voided the provision in the Social Security Act of 2007 that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who became the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered total permanent disability.

The High Court sided with Belinda Dolera, who sought to reverse a Court of Appeal’s ruling that denied her application for survivorship pension following her husband’s death.

According to court records, her husband, Leonardo Dolera, became disabled and started receiving his permanent disability pension from the SSS in 1980. But it was only a year later that Leonardo and Belinda got married and lived together as husband and wife.

When Leonardo died in November 2009, Belinda filed a claim for survivorship pension before the SSS.

However, the agency denied this, citing Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law, which states that “upon the death of the total disability pensioner, his primary beneficiaries ‘as of the date of disability’ shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension.”

It reasoned that Belinda did not qualify as a primary beneficiary as she became a legitimate spouse of Leonardo only after his disability.?Belinda elevated her petition to the Social Security Commission and the CA, which also denied her plea.

But the SC, in granting Belinda’s petition, pointed out 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 hazard of contingencies.”

“As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary,” the decision read.

The SC also stressed that Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law is “void” for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, adding that the provision was “arbitrary and too sweeping” as it considers all marriages contracted after a pensioner suffers permanent disability a “sham.”

It noted that the provision also creates “undue prejudice and discrimination” against dependent spouses who did not marry their pensioner-spouses for the purpose of obtaining benefits.

In the case of Belinda and Leonardo, the SC ruled that their marriage could not be considered a “scheme” as they were together for 28 years and had a child before the husband’s disability.

“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,” the decision read.

“Thus, its unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of (Belinda’s) right in violation of the due process clause,” it added.