G.R. No. L-19868; March 31, 1965
Igmidio Canovas, petitioner-appellant, vs. Batangas Transportation Company and Social Security System, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Igmidio Canovas, an employee of Batangas Transportation Company, was injured and hospitalized from January 21, 1961, to June 19, 1961, presumably in the course of his employment. On February 5, 1962, he filed a petition before the Social Security Commission praying that Batangas Transportation Company and the Social Security System (SSS) be ordered to pay him sickness benefits under Section 14 of Republic Act 1161 for his period of confinement. The Batangas Transportation Company opposed, stating it had already paid his hospitalization, medical expenses, and compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The SSS filed a motion to dismiss the petition against it for lack of cause of action, arguing the petition contained no allegation that Canovas was unemployed or a voluntary member of the System at the time of his hospitalization. The Social Security Commissioner, Manuel A. Concordia, issued an order on April 6, 1962, dismissing the petition only with respect to the SSS. Canovas appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the Social Security System is liable to pay sickness benefits to Igmidio Canovas under Section 14 of Republic Act 1161, as amended, given that he was an employed, compulsory member at the time of his sickness.

RULING

No. The Social Security System is not liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition against the SSS. Section 14 of Republic Act 1161, as amended, clearly provides that sickness benefits shall be paid by the employer, or by the System only if the claimant is unemployed or is a voluntary member. The Court held that the term “unemployed” in the statute retains its specific meaning, referring to members who are separated from employment, not merely those not actually working due to illness. The Court explained that despite amendments (Republic Act 1792) making membership compulsory and removing provisions on voluntary membership and unemployment benefits, Section 14 remained unaltered, indicating no change in the System’s liability. The System’s responsibility for sickness benefits is limited to members who are unemployed (separated) or voluntary members. Since Canovas was an employed, compulsory member at the time, his claim for sickness benefits lies solely against his employer, not the SSS. The Court also noted, as an additional ground, that the appeal from the order of a single Commissioner was premature, as the law allows appeals only from decisions of the Commission en banc. The appeal was dismissed.