GR 21441; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967
RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ANGEL R. DE GUZMAN, LEON DAGAMAC, ET AL., petitioners and appellees, vs. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, respondents. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondent and appellant.
FACTS
The petitioners, employees of Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. and compulsory members of the Social Security System, were confined in 1960 for injuries sustained in the course of their employment. Their employer paid them compensation pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The employees subsequently demanded sickness benefits under the Social Security Act. The employer refused, contending that receipt of workmen’s compensation barred further recovery under the Social Security law. The employees then filed a proceeding with the Social Security Commission, which granted their claim in a resolution dated January 18, 1963. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. appealed this resolution.
ISSUE
Whether payment of compensation to injured employees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes their further recovery of sickness benefits under the Social Security Act.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Social Security Commission, holding that employees who receive compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are still entitled to sickness benefits under the Social Security Act. The Court ruled that Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which provides for exclusive remedies against the employer, only prohibits double recovery from the same employer for the same injury. Social security benefits are not a recovery against the employer but are paid from a common fund to which employees contribute as members of the System. The employer’s obligation to advance sickness benefits is merely administrative, and it is subsequently reimbursed by the System for 80% of the amount; the 20% burden retained by the employer is an administrative expense to prevent fraud, not compensation for injury. The two benefits differ in nature and source: workmen’s compensation is an indemnity burden on the industry for employment-related hazards, while social security benefits are insurance paid as a matter of right due to membership in the System, irrespective of the cause of the hazard. Therefore, they are not alternate remedies.