Is the SSS anti-labor and anti-people?

At the rate the SSS is denying claims for benefits arising from work-related diseases, disability and deaths, it is not difficult to understand why many workers and even employers in the country are looking at SSS as a traitor to the public trust for betraying the mandate entrusted on it by law to administer the State Insurance Fund.

This fund is contributed in billions by the monthly contributions by employers and which the SSS hold in trust for the benefit of workers who are sick, disabled or dead due to work-related causes. This money does not belong to the government. It does not belong to the SSS. It belongs to the employers for the welfare of the workers in the event of work-related accidents, illnesses or deaths. When workers file claims however, ninety percent of these claims are denied by the SSS. And the appellate body, the ECC or the Employees Compensation Commission, almost all the time affirm the SSS and the GSIS too in their unabated denials. One case in point is SSS vs Violeta Simacas, GR No 217866, decided by the Supreme Court on June 20, 2022.

An employee who died because of a work-connected disease and the widow filed a claim for death benefits with the SSS which was very, very fast in denying the claim on the ground that the cause of death was not listed by the ECC as a compensable disease. The ECC was even quicker in affirming the denial. These agencies seem to feel as if it is their mission to deny claims. The Court of Appeals reversed both the SSS and the ECC, lecturing on them that PD 626 amending Book Four of the Labor Code is a social legislation and should be construed liberally in favor of the workers. Do the SSS and the ECC need this kind of admonition by the Court of Appeals?

Instead of complying with the appellate court, the SSS had the temerity to appeal to the Supreme Court. The SSS uses public funds and SSS funds to spend for an appeal seeking to deny workers of the benefits already granted by the Court of Appeals. They use lawyers paid from public funds and SSS funds to fight against a court award in favor of the workers. If this is not being anti-labor, then what is? This is not the only case where the SSS always denies claims from workers, and when the denial is reversed, they always appeal the denial with the highest court of the land. All these are anti-labor initiatives which should not be done by a social institution funded by the people and by the workers and employers.

The SSS always shields its anti-labor policies by invoking technicalities. Thus the Supreme Court reminds the SSS officials once more: "Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation. There are 119 stringent criteria to follow. The degree of proof required under P.D. 626, is merely substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." This was satisfied by the claimant here. Thus, the High Tribunal lectured to the SSS again:" What the law requires is a reasonable work connection and not a direct causal relationship. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the worlunen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Probability not certainty is the touchstone."

The SSS should remember that it does not own the funds. It is a mere steward who must not be more popish than the pope. The court instructed the SSS: "As a final note, we find it necessary to reiterate that P.D. No. 626, as amended, is a social legislation whose primordial purpose is to provide meaningful protection to the working class against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income. Thus, as the official agents charged by law to implement social justice guaranteed by the Constitution, the ECC and the SSS should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work collection with the illness or injury, as the case may be."

The SSS officials should remember that they are servants and not masters of the people. They should put these words of the Supreme Court in their minds and hearts:" It is only this kind of interpretation that can give meaning and substance to the compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations should be resolved iI). favor of labor." Even a freshman law student knows this by heart.