BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENT.

On December 5, 1960, petitioner Benguet Consolidated, Inc. filed
with the Social Security Commission a petition alleging that its
employee Lamberto Forosan suffered an injury while in its employ on
September 3, 1960, as a result of which he was unable to work during
the period from September 3 to October 8, 1960: that petitioner paid
said employee the corresponding disability benefits under the
provisions of Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act: that
respondent Social Security System, through its regional representative
at Baguio City, in its letter of October 12, 1960, requested petitioner
to pay to said employee serial security sickness benefits covering the
same period of time for which ho had been previously paid workmen’s
compensation disability benefits; that the Workmen’s Compensation Act
under which said employee was paid workmen’s compensation disability
benefits for the period of injury and disability (September 7 to
October 9, 1960) provides that the rights and remedies granted by it to
an employee by reason of a personal injury entitling him to
compensation, “shall exclude all other rights and remedies accuring to
the employees, his personal representatives, dependents or nearest of
kin against the employer under the Civil Code and other laws, because
of said injury”, that the demand of respondent’s regional
representative is invalid, considering said provision of law; and that
20% of the social security disability benefits sought to be paid to
said employee will also be of petitioner’s account, thereby
”compelling it to pay disability benefits twice for the same injury
and/or disability”. Petitioner prayed that the demand of respondent’s
regional if representative dated October 12, 1960 “be countermanded and
declared of no further force and effect.”

To this petition, respondent, (on December 12, 1960) filed an answer
alleging as special defenses that the Social Security Act (Republic Act
No. 1161, as amended) being If a much later legislation than the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, its provisions were not contemplated by
Section 5 of the latter Act when it was enacted in 1927; that insofar
as subsequent legislations are concerned, Section 5 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act is not applicable to the provisions of the Social
Security Act; that under the provisions of the Social Security Act, the
employees-members of the Social Security System are protected against
the hazards of disability, sickness, old age, and death, for which they
and their respective employers contribute to the funds of the System
their proportionate premiums fixed by law and, therefore, its members
cannot be deprived of the benefits provided for therein, despite the
provisions of Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; and that the
provisions of the Social Security Act and those of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act complement, rather than to negate each other and,
therefore, the respective benefits under both laws for the same injury
and/or disability may be granted separately thereunder, respondent
prayed that the petition be dismissed and that petitioner be ordered to
pay the corresponding sickness benefits to its employee Lamberto
Forosan, pursuant to Section 14 of the Social Security Act.

Issues having been joined, the case was heard and, after hearing,
the Social Security Commission issued a resolution on September 11,
1961, dismissing the petition, and directing petitioner to pay its
employee Lamberto Forosan the social security sickness benefits due
him for the injury he suffered on September 3, 1960, conformably with
the mandate of Section 14 of the Social Security Act.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said resolution,
but it was denied by the Social Security Commission, in its order of
October 26, 1961.

Hence, this appeal.

As stated by the Social Security Commission, the only issue for
resolution in this case is whether sickness benefits under the Social
Security Act may be recovered simultaneously with disability benefits
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, or whether said benefits are
mutually exclusive.

Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, provides:

“The rights and remedies granted by this Act to an
employee by reason of a personal injury entitling him to compensation
shall exclude all other rights and remedies accruing to the employee,
his personal representatives, dependents or nearest of kin against the
employer under the Civil Code and other laws, because of such injury.”

It is appellant’s view that under this provision, when an injured
employee receives any compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, such compensation automatically precludes the employee for
collecting any other compensation, benefit, and privilege of whatever
kind and nature, arising from the same illness or injury by reason of
which he was paid.

To our mind, all that this provision means is that there should be
no double recovery against the same employer for the same death or
injury. But this is not the case in respect of social security
benefits, because to allow the recovery of said benefits does not mean
allowing a double recovery against the same employer. An action for
recovery of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act for the
employee’s confinement which is compansable under the Workmen’s
Compensation Law, is not a recovery against the employer for sickness
benefit. The fact that the law (Section 14) requires that sickness
benefits shall be advanced by the employer is of no moment, as the
obligation of the employer to advance such benefits is only to expedite
payment of sickness benefits. Note that the employer is subsequently
reimbursed by the System of this benefits advanced by him in the
amounts fixed by the law. Although the employer in the case of sickness
benefits bears the burden of 20% of the benefits advanced by him, since
the System reimburses only 80 % thereof, this burden of 20% is imposed,
not as a liability because of an injury which is compensable under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, but to preclude connivance in, or the
filing of fraudulent claims for reimbursement. This 20% of the sickness
benefits imposed on the employer is more in the nature of an
administrative expense and not really a compensation for an injury.

The legislative history of the Social Security Act, clearly
indicates the legislative intention to treat social security benefits
as entirely distinct and separate from the statutory benefits provided
for under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Observe that under Section 13 of the original Act, namely, Republic
Act No. 1161, the payment of social security death and disability
benefits was made subject to the condition that the death or disability
is not compensable under tho Workmen’s Compensation Act, because if the
death or disability is compensable under the latter Act, no recovery
tor social security benefits was allowed by the original law; except in
cases where the benefits recoverable under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act were less than what were provided under the Social Security Act, in
which case, the System was liable to pay for the difference in the
amount of benefits. Thus, Section 13 of the original law, provides:

“Sec. 13. Death and disability benefits.—(a)
Upon the covered employee’s death or total and permanent disability
under such conditions as the Commission on may define, before becoming
eligible for retirement and if either such death or disability is net
compensate tinder the Workmen’s Componsation Act, he or, in case of his
death, his beneficiaries as recorded by his employer shall be entitled
to the following benefits: If the employee dies cr become disabled and
he has paid less than thirteen monthly contributions as provided in
Section nineteen hereof, his accumulated premiums only shall be paid;
or if he has paid for thirteen to twenty-four, or from twenty-five to
thirty-six, or from thirty-seven to forty-eight,or more than
forty-eight monthly contributions, the benefit shall be, respectively,
equivalent to thirty per-centum of the average monthly compensation he
has received during the year multiplied by twelve: Provided, That in all caces he must have paid the month during which he died or berarae disabled: Provided, further, That he or his beneficiaries shall be given a grace period of one month within which to pay such contribution: Provided, finally,
That if his death or disability is compensable under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act and the amount payable thereunder is less than what
would have been payable to him or his beneficiaries under this
section, the difference between the two amounts shall be paid by the
System.”

“(b) If his disability is partial but permanent, the amount or
benefit shall be such percentage of the benefit described in the
preceeding paragraph ri« the commission may determine, with due regard
to the degree of disability.”

When the original law was first amended on Juno 21, 1957 by Republic
Act No. 1792, Section 8 of this amendatory law deleted the condition in
Section 13 making the payment of social security death and disability
benefits subject to the condition of non-recovery under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. As amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No..1792,
Section 13 of the law reads:

“Sec. 13. Death and disability benefits.—(a) Upon the covered
employee’s death or total and permanent disability under su3h
conditions as the Commission may define, before becoming eligible for
retirement he or, in case of his death, his beneficiaries az recorded
by his employer, shall be entitled to a benefit equivalent to One
hundred per centum of the average monthly compensation ho has received
during the year multiplied by twelve if he has been a member of the
System for at least one year, or multiplied by six if he has been a
member of the System for less than one year: Provided, that in
no case shall he be qualified to claim the benefits as herein provided
if he has failed to pay his contributions for more than six months
before his death or disability: Provided, finally, That
if the death or disability should occur during such six-month period of
grace, he shall be entitled to the corresponding benefits, but any such
paid contributions shall be deducted from the amount of benefits
payable hereunder: x x x.”

When the same Section 13 was again amended on June 18, 1960 by
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2658, the original provision subjecting
payment of social security benefits upon the condition of non-recovery
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was not revived.

It is, therefore, clear that although Congress originally if
subjected the payment of social security death and disability benefits
to the condition that there is no recovery under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, the payment of social security sickness benefits
under the present state of the Social Security Act was not made subject
to that condition. This subsequent deletion of an exempting clause
originally contained in the Social Security Act, is an indication to
do away with the provision.

The philosophy underlying the Workmen’s Compensation if Act is to
make the payment of the benefits provided for therein as a
responsibility of the industry, on the ground that it is industry which
should bear the resulting death or injury to employees engaged in the
said industry. On the other hand, social security sickness benefits are
not paid as a burden on the industry, but are paid to the members of
the System as a matter of right whenever the hazards provided for in
the law occurs. To deny payment of social security benefits because the
death or injury or confinement is compensable under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act would be to deprive the employees members of the
System of the statutory benefits bought and paid for by them, since
they contribute their money to the general common fund out of which
benefits are paid. In other words, the benefits provided for in the
Workmen’s Compensation Act accrues to the employees concerned, due to
the hazards involved in their employment and is made a burden on the
employment itself. However, social security benefits are paid to the
System’s members, by reason. of their membership therein for which they
contribute their money to a general common fund. As the Social Security
Commission correctly observed:

“The Workmen’s Compensation Act is particularly
designed to provide rights of action to employees for injuries suffered
by them during employment. They are compensated, in the form of damages
for injuries arising out of, and in the course of, employment or in
illness aggravated by, or the result of, the employment (Sec. 2,
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended).

“On the other hand,
benefits granted under the Social Security Law are not damages. They
are rights afforded social security members and their dependents,
through which said members are assured minimum financial assistance
during times of work stoppage, due to hazards covered by the law.
Unlike the Workmen’s Compensation Act where the injury must arise out
of and in the course of employment, benefits under the Social Security
Law are awarded to a member for whatever cause. Compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is a unilateral liability of the employer.
Under the Social Security Law, the benefits are paid by the System out
of funds contributed by the employer and the employees in the
proportions provided by law. All members-employees of the System pay
contributions which have been deducted from their monthly salary, wage,
or compensation. Said contributions are in the amount corresponding to
their salary,wage or compensation, in accordance with the schedule
fixed by the Social Security Act.

x x x x x x x

“The Social Security Act was enacted in 1954 and the latest
amendments were effected in 1960. On the other hand, the Workmen’s
Compensation Act is an earlier enactment and its latest amendment went
into force in 1952. The Social Security Law, being a later enactment,
could not have possibly been contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation
Act when it precluded the employees compensated under it from
collecting any other compensation or benefits that may be awarded under
the Workmen’s Compensation Laws.

“To recover under the Workmen’s Compensation laws, the person who
suffers the harm must have stood in an employment relationship of a
type envisaged by the statute (Matter of Flielmi v. Netherland Dairy
Co., 254 NY 60, 171 NE 906). The right to the social security
benefits, on the other hand, is predicated in all cases upon the fact
that the wage-earner or self-employed person had attained a required
affiliation with the insurance system called insured status (Report
from the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate on H. E, 6000, Seen. Rep.
No. 1663, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1950). Likewise, under the Workmen’s
Compensation laws, the harm defined as compensable (Charon’s Case, 321
Mass. 694). No such compensable injury need be suffered by social
security benefit claimants. Under the Workmen’s Compensation laws, the
harm suffered must have been attributable to the employment in the
manner contemplated by law, that is, there must be a connection between
the injury and employment (Cardillo v. Liberty Slut. Ins. Co., 380 US
469). Social Security laws award compensation for whatever cause, not
necessarily industrial accidents and diseases (Millis and Montgomery,
the Economics of Labor, Ch. IV. 1058).”

For all the foregoing, we hold, as did the Social Security
Commission, that sickness benefits under the Social Security Act may be
recovered simultaneously with disability benefits under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner-appellant.

So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.