Citation: G.R. No. 192531; November 12, 2014
Ponente: Velasco; THIRD DIVISION
Doctrine:
Repeal of laws
Relative; definition
Reversion of parental authority; death of adoptive parent
FACTS:
Petitioner Bernardina Bartolome (Bartolome) was the biological mother of John Colcol (John). John was a seaman and he died due to an accident while on duty. Bartolome sought to claim death benefits from the SSS as she was the sole heir and beneficiary of John.
Her request was denied. The SSS explained that she is “no longer considered the parent of JOHN as he was legally adopted by CORNELIO COLCOL based on the documents you submitted to us.
Cornelio Colcol was John's great grandfather. The decree of adoption attained finality in February of 1985 while john was just 2 years old.
Based on these facts, the SSS claimed that Bartolome is no longer the legitimate parent of John and is thus not entitled to Employees compensation. That the legitimate parent is now Cornelio Colcol.
Respondents cite the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation which states:
RULE XV – BENEFICIARIES
SECTION 1. Definition. (a) Beneficiaries shall be either primary or secondary, and determined at the time of employee’s death.
(b) The following beneficiaries shall be considered primary:
(1) The legitimate spouse living with the employee at the time of the employee’s death until he remarries; and
(2) Legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or acknowledged natural children, who are unmarried not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age, or over 21 years of age provided that he is incapacitated and incapable of self - support due to physical or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during minority; Provided, further, that a dependent acknowledged natural child shall be considered as a primary beneficiary only when there are no other dependent children who are qualified and eligible for monthly income benefit; provided finally, that if there are two or more acknowledged natural children, they shall be counted from the youngest and without substitution, but not exceeding five.
(c) The following beneficiaries shall be considered secondary:
(1) The legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the employee for regular support;
(2) The legitimate descendants and illegitimate children who are unmarried, not gainfully employed, and not over 21 years of age, or over 21 years of age provided that he is incapacitated and incapable of self - support due to physical or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during minority.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the interpretation of the ECC stating that only legitimate parents may benefit from compensation is correct.
2. Whether or not Petitioner qualifies as a dependent parent notwithstanding her son's adoption by someone else.
HELD:
1. No. The interpretation is incorrect. Art. 167 (j) of the Labor Code on employee's compensation provides that beneficiaries are the “dependent spouse until he remarries and dependent children, who are the primary beneficiaries. In their absence, the dependent parents and subject to the restrictions imposed on dependent children, the illegitimate children and legitimate descendants who are the secondary beneficiaries; Provided; that the dependent acknowledged natural child shall be considered as a primary beneficiary when there are no other dependent children who are qualified and eligible for monthly income benefit.” The ECC on the other hand, interpreted this provision to state that only “legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the employee for regular support.”
This is unauthorized administrative legislation. Article 7 of the New Civil Code states that:
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law.
Guided by this doctrine, We find that the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation is patently a wayward restriction of and a substantial deviation from Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code when it interpreted the phrase “dependent parents” to refer to “legitimate parents.”
2. YES. The Supreme Court also noted that three years after the adoption decree, Cornelio died while John was still a minor. John's minority at the time of his adopter's death is a significant factor because under such circumstance, parental authority must be deemed to have reverted back to the biological parent. Adoption is a personal relationship and that there are no collateral relatives by virtue of adoption—who was then left to care for the adopted minor child if the adopter passed away?
Moreover, this ruling finds support on the fact that even though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption, the ties between the adoptee and the biological parents are not entirely eliminated. To demonstrate, the biological parents, in some instances, are able to inherit from the adopted, as can be gleaned from Art. 190 of the Family Code:
Art. 190. Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be governed by the following rules:
xxx
(2) When the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate ascendants of the adopted concur with the adopter, they shall divide the entire estate, one-half to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the adopters;
xxx
(6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive, then the ordinary rules of legal or intestate succession shall apply.
The Supreme Court thus ordered the ECC to release the benefits to petitioner Bartolome.
No comments:
Post a Comment