Republic of the PhilippinesSocial Security SystemSocial Security System Arbitration BodyRegional Arbitration Branch No. 09Negros Occidental

Conchita Reyes-Mabaling A.K.A. Consing Reyes-MabalingPetitioner SSC CASE NO-C9-2014 -001

-versus- FOR: CLAIM OF DEATH BENEFITS

Social Security System Negros Occidental, Represented by Mario LopezRespondentsx--------------------------------------/

RESPONDENT'S POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT, Social Security System (SSS) Negros Occidental represented by Mario Lopez, through counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully avers, THUS:

STATEMENT OF THE CASEThis case was filed on November 15, 2004 by the Petitioner with the Social Security System Arbitration Body.

The Petitioner asserts that the denial of her application for death benefits on the ground of discrepancies of name in the application for death benefits and the beneficiary stated in Jose Mabaling's records is illegal and prejudicial to her rights as a beneficiary.

The Respondent firmly maintains that the denial of the claim is for a legal and valid ground. The denial was strongly based on the reason that the applicant, Conchita Mabaling and the beneficiary of Jose Mabaling, Consing Reyes-Mabaling, are two different individuals.

Hence, this case.

Both Parties were required to undergo mediation; however, no settlement was reached.

Based on the foregoing, the sole issue to be resolved in this case is:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ENTRIES ARE GROSS THAT WOULD MERIT FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE DENIAL.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTSThe salient facts of this case are as follows:

The Respondent, Social Security System Negros Occidental, on September 2014, received an application for claim of death benefits from the Petitioner, Conchita Reyes-Mabaling. Based on her application form, she is the wife of Jose Mabaling, a member of the Social Security System, who died on 1987. The Petitioner further claims that she is the mother of seven children whom she represents in the said application for death benefits.

Following procedure, the SSS reviewed the application of Conchita Reyes-Mabaling and discovered the following:

Jose Mabaling, based on his application form and information sheet with the SSS, is married with a Consing Reyes-Mabaling and not to the applicant Conchita Reyes-Mabaling;

Jose Mabaling had three children with the said Consing Reyes-Mabaling namely, Jose, Gabriel and Jordache Reyes-Mabaling;

The applicant, Conchita Reyes-Mabaling, is the guardian of the above-mentioned children of Jose Mabaling. This is based on an application of death benefits years before the present application; and

There have already been a release of death benefit claims to the applicant wherein she represented the children of Jose Mabaling as the guardian.

On November 5, 2004, the Respondent denied the current application primarily on the discrepancy of name. The Respondent alleged that Conchita and Consing are two distinct individuals. Further, the Respondent further alleges that there have already been the release of premiums in relation with the death of Jose Mabaling to the applicant.

RESPONDENT'S POSITIONThe Respondent strongly holds that the denial is for a valid and legal ground. The discrepancy of the name in addition with the latches produced by the prior release of the proceeds gives the Respondent more than sufficient reason to deny the application for the claim.

To further advance the Respondent's petition, the following are the reason to support his argument:Conchita Reyes-Mabaling and Consing Reyes-Mabaling are two distinct individuals;

The action for claim of benefits have been barred by prescription; and

The action for claim is likewise barred by latches due to the prior release of benefits to the petitioner.

DISCUSSIONCONCHITA REYES-MABALING ANDCONSING REYES-MABALING ARE TWODISTINCT INDIVIDUALS;It is clear from the documentary evidence presented by the petitioner that there are two distinct individuals in the like of Conchita Reyes-Mabaling and Consing Reyes-Mabaling. Among the documents presented are the birth certificate of the petitioner and the membership form of the deceased. Basing from the documents alone, there are two different individuals.

The birth certificate is the best evidence of a person's identity. In this case the petitioner alleges that her identity is proven by the birth certificate. Since the petitioner is Conchita Reyes-Mabaling, she could not assume the identity of Consing Reyes-Mabaling.

The other documentary evidence being presented by the petitioner holds no _______ as the best evidence of the identity of the petitioner is her birth certificate. Thus, following the evidence and documents presented it can be inferred that there are two different people involved in this claim.

THE ACTION FOR CLAIM OF BENEFITS HAVE BEEN BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION

Actions based on written contracts prescibe in ten years from the date of the claim becomes actionable. In this case, the death of the deceased happened in 1987 and the claim was made on 2004. There have been a gap of at least 17 years from the date of the death to the date of filing the claim.

It is evident from the dates alone that there have been prescription in the case. Even though this right for benefits have been granted by the Constitution it should not be slept to. Thus, the claim should be dismissed on this ground alone.

THE ACTION FOR CLAIM IS LIKEWISE BARRED BY LATCHES DUE TO THE PRIOR RELEASE OF BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER.

The action is likewise barred due to latches. There have been a claim for benefits that have been done by the petitioner years prior to the current application for claim. In the said application, there was a release of benefits given to the petitioner as a guardian. A claim on the basis of death may only be filed once or applied to in a single claim only. It cannot be a cause for application for multiple claim of deaths. Thus, the action should be dismissed due to latches.

CONCLUSION

The application for death benefits in this case is clearly one that should be dismissed for being an elaborate scheme to unjustly enrich the petitioner. The dismissal is clearly not founded on technicalities alone but on evidentiary proof that there exists two individuals in the like of Consing Reyes-Mabaling and Conchita Reyes-Mabaling.

Thus, on the sole issue of the case, it is respectfully maintained that there are two distinct individuals that exist and that the application for death benefits shall be denied.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the application for death benefits shall be dismissed and that the Petitioner shall be disallowed to apply for death benefit claims on the same ground.

Other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Done in Negros Occidental, Philippines, this 30th day of November.

MARIO LOPEZRepresentative of SSS Negros OccidentalRespondent