Patterns of anti-labor decisions

What happens to the poor work force in government, if the agencies created by law to care for them, in case of disease, disability and death, would opt to deny their claims for benefits, on the selfish pretext that they are just protecting the fund? What fund but the one put up by the employers and entrusted on the GSIS to administer. It is not owned by the GSIS. It is merely deposited with them in trust for the benefit of government employees in times of distress. That fund belongs to the workers. Why then should GSIS, in its misplaced overzealousness, deny the beneficial owners access to that money? Who gave them the authority to be too selfish to the very people they are paid to serve?

The anti-labor GSIS and ECC decision that this column took up last week elicited a viral response sent directly to this writer. Every reader who responded had a gripe and a grievance.  They all have stories to tell. That Supreme Court decision where Justice Brion reprimanded these agencies was not an isolated case. There are too many others that this column cannot contain them all. In GSIS versus Raoet (GR 89222), the High Court quoted its ruling in Biscaaarra vs. Republic (184 Phil 209), whereby these agencies were told to be faithful to their mandate of social justice. They should not hold on the money that belongs to the workers.

The words of the Supreme Court should melt the hearts of GSIS and ECC officials and personnel, viz: “The fear that this humane, liberal and progressive view will swamp the Government with claims x x x is no argument against it because the Republic, as a welfare state, x x x, in providing for the social justice guarantee in our Constitution, assumes such risk. Justice Brion, in the case of Raoet, added: The GSIS therefore cannot use that argument to refuse paying benefits to the widow whose husband devoted 27 years of his life to government service, and whose death was caused by ailment, aggravated by the emotional stresses and pressures of his work.

The patterns of GSIS and ECC refusals to pay benefits are kilometric. Raoet was an engineer of the National Irrigation Administration. He died of cardiac arrest. The widow pleaded for benefits. The GSIS denied the claim. The ECC agreed to deny. The CA insisted that GSIS should pay. GSIS appealed. The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court (GR 156182) and Court of Appeals again reversed the GSIS and ECC denial of a claim for death benefits to a Navy sergeant's widow. The poor sergeant was shot in line of duty. In GR 167572, the Court again directed the GSIS to pay the widow of a public school teacher, Melvin Palma.

In GR 81327, both the GSIS and the ECC denied death benefits to the widow and orphans of a public school teacher in Tagbilaran, Bohol, who died in a motorcycle accident, while he was travelling from his hometown on the way to school. In GR  90267, a poor public high school teacher in Pangasinan died in line of duty. He was electrocuted while making a school project upon the written order by the principal. The GSIS refused to pay death benefits, and the ECC affirmed as usual. The Court told the GSIS and the ECC: The thrust of social justice is compassion for the poor. By denying the claim, the ECC and the GSIS ignored this public policy and committed grave abuse of discretion.

I can write volumes of other cases of the same patterns, but it will only cause mental anguish to government officials and personnel. These patterns of anti-labor stance of the GSIS and the ECC should be known to the people. It is a matter of public interest. I am compiling these cases and will write more about them. The people should know, so that in knowing, they can take the proper step as called for by these truths.