ELVIRA M. NIEBRES, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (MARINE MANNING AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION), RESPONDENT.

Elvira M. Niebres _{(or Niebres for brevity)} by this Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the Decision dated March 26, 2003 rendered by the Employees Compensation Commission _{(or ECC)} which affirmed the decision of the Social Security System _{(or SSS)}. The decision is assailed on the ground that this was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Niebres is the widow of Rodolfo Niebres _{(or Rodolfo}), a seafarer who worked as an electrician on board the M/T “Tesubu II” manned by the respondent Marine Manning and Management Corporation _{(or Marine Manning)}. On June 26, 1984 the said ship sank in the Arabian Sea, and Rodolfo and 27 more Filipinos were among those who were lost and presumably perished at sea.

The SSS informed the families of those unfortunate seamen to file their claims. As his beneficiary, Niebres filed with the SSS on August 29, 1984 a claim for death and funeral benefits, and this was granted and awarded to her. But her claim of benefits did not stop there. Sometime in June 2002, or some 18 years after the incident, Niebres filed an employee’s compensation claim before the SSS asserting that Rodolfo’s death was work related. However this time she was denied, and in a letter dated June 7, 2002 the SSS stated that:

Thru an Affidavit dated August 27, 2002 _{(Annexes “G” – “G-1”, pp. 34-35, rollo)} Niebres moved for its reconsideration, but this too was denied. The SSS then thru its AVP Medical Operation forwarded the case records to the ECC. In its decision dated March 26, 2003 the ECC denied _{(p. 40, rollo)} the claim being pursued by Niebres.

Hence this petition wherein Niebres raised for the consideration of this Court the lone error that:

Niebres admitted that she failed to file her claim with the ECC within the 10 year period, but blames the SSS for failing to inform and instruct her to do this. According to Niebres, the SSS has the duty to inform her that she should also file her claim before the ECC and its failure to do so constitutes serious non-performance of its duties to the public. Niebres ratiocinates that had the SSS informed her that she could also file her claim for employee’s compensation benefits under P.D. 626 as amended, then she would have simultaneously filed it with her claim before the SSS. Niebres further defends that under the circumstance her claim has not yet prescribed because the fact that she filed her claim for benefits under the SSS law, after being told to do so, she is considered to have also filed simultaneously and with it her employees compensation claim.

In its Comment _{(pp. 62-69, rollo)} the SSS insists that the denial of the claim of compensation benefits of Niebres before the ECC on the basis of prescription is valid. And even if the claim did not prescribe, still Niebres could not claim under the ECC because at the time of the contingency, the employment of the deceased was not compulsorily covered under the Employees Compensation Law. While it maybe true that the deceased died in the course of employment it was not shown that he voluntarily submitted himself for employees compensation coverage. In its Manifestation (pp. 132-136, rollo) the SSS defends that petitioner erroneously equated the deceased EC coverage with his SS coverage. It must be impressed that under the SS law payment benefits is not conditioned on whether the member has an active coverage or employment. Neither should the sickness or injury resulting to disability or death arise out of or in the course of his employment nor attributed thereto to be paid of the benefits under the SS Law. It is only material that he was a covered member or contributions were paid for and in his behalf (ibid).

We find merit in the petition.

It is unquestionable that Niebres was able to file her claim for the death benefits of her husband only because the SSS informed her to do so. However, while the SSS gave said advice to Niebres it failed to convey that she could claim the same benefits before the ECC. While it is true that a person should know his rights under the law, yet government agencies like the SSS which are tasked to restore the earning role of a deceased and to provide for his desolate family’s subsistence, have the obligation to advise the beneficiaries of the other and full benefits to which they are entitled.

It is undisputed too that Niebres filed her claim before the ECC only 18 years after the date of the contingency. Though by ordinary circumstance such action would be prescribed, the facts involved in this case however would be an exemption.

It has been held that while the Social Security System and the Employee’s Compensation Commission may be commended for their vigilance against sustaining unjustified claims that would only drain funds meant for deserving disabled employees, they also ought to realize that strict interpretation of the rules should not result in the denial of assistance to those in need and qualified therefore – compassion for them is not a dole-out, but a right _{(Republic vs. Mariano, 400 SCRA 86, 88)}. And as emphasized by the Court, x x x the liberality of law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails and the official agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially in light of compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances. Elsewise stated, a humanitarian impulse, dictated by no less than the Constitution itself under the social justice policy, calls for a liberal and sympathetic approach to legitimate appeals of disabled public servants; or that all doubts to the right to compensation must be resolved in favor of the employee laborer. Verily the policy is to extend the applicability of the law on employees compensation to as many employees who can avail of the benefits thereunder _{(GSIS vs. Cuanang, G. R. No. 158846, June 3, 2004)}.

It is for this same reason that the Supreme Court has come out with a decision _{(Buena Obra vs. SSS, 401 SCRA 206)} where even after the lapse of three years to file the claim before the System from the time the cause of action accrued, it still gave due course to the claim filed. It thus held that: x x x when the petitioner filed her claim for death benefits under the SSS law, her claim for the same benefits under the Employee’s Compensation Law should be considered as filed _{(Buena Obra vs. SSS, supra)}. This is but logical and reasonable because the claim for death benefits which petitioner filed with the SSS is of the same nature as her claim before the ECC. Furthermore the SSS is of the same agency with which the Employees’ Compensation claims are filed _{(Buena Obra vs. SSS, supra)}. Undoubtedly, this case is similarly situated hence We find its applicability.

The claim of the SSS that the deceased has not submitted himself for employee’s compensation coverage must likewise fail. It cannot rely on a bare allegation which it failed to convincingly prove, for allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence. Mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof _{(Nedia vs. Lavinia, AM No. RTJ-05-1957, Sept. 26, 2005)}.

Unquestionably Niebres is entitled to the benefits claimed, but the payment of which was denied only because of the erroneous assumption that prescription has set in.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Employee’s Compensation Commission dated March 26, 2003 is hereby SET ASIDE, and the Social Security System is hereby directed to pay Elvira M. Niebres the benefits due under the existing law.

SO ORDERED.

Guariña, III and Tagle, JJ., concur.