Republic of the Philippines

Social Security Commission

Makati City

Conchita Reyes Mabaling a.k.a Consing

Reyes Mabaling, petitioner,
vs.

SSS Case no. ____

For: Payment of
Death Benefits

Social Security System,

Zamboanga Branch,
respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, the petitioner, through the undersigned
counsel, and unto this Honorable Commission, respectfully replies
to the July 24, 2006 Answer of herein Respondents and avers that:
1. Respondents contention that petitioner has no legal capacity to
sue is yet to be judged. In their answer, it is clear that they
strongly refuse to acknowledge Consing Mabaling and Conchita
Mabaling as one and the same person, regardless of the
documents presented and the affidavits prepared by disinterested
person who certified that Conchita Mabaling could only be
Consing Mabaling- the lawful wife of deceased Jose Mabaling;
2. On the first point, the respondents keep on reiterating that the
documents presented where not certified true copies, thus cannot
be given weight. Nowhere in the answer did the respondents
mention the veracity of the affidavits attached therewith;

3. The petitioners would like to stress that the affidavits were

executed by the following individuals: Secretary of the Church who
prepared the marriage certificate of Spouses Mabaling, by her
neighbors, friends, relatives, employers, and most of all by
Joselito, Rosal, Maria, and Rizalina Mabaling- all are lawfully
recognized by herein respondent as Jose Mabalings legitimate
children;
4. The respondents also raised the issue on prescription on their
Answer. The law on prescription, being procedural in nature,
should not outweigh the substantive right of herein petitioner, it
must not be a tool to deny the petitioner her rights for death
benefit claims as the lawful wife of Jose Mabaling, for in so doing,
injustice would result;
6. To support this, petitioner would like to cite Article 10 of the
New Civil Code, to wit In case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presumed that the law making body
intended right and justice to prevail.
7. More specifically, social security laws are liberally construed in
favour of social justice.
8. On the third defense, respondents presented their argument on
Estoppel basing from the document signed by Consing Mabaling
as the guardian of the Mabaling children. It was further supported
by the affidavit of one Elea Montes who claimed to have assisted
Consing in her application. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues
that the defense of estoppel is not a proper ground to dismiss the
complaint

bearing

in

mind

the

peculiar

circumstances

surrounding the case.

9. It must be noted that Conchita Mabaling only reached Grade 3
at Ayala Central School and that she is merely a plantation
worker as evidenced by her school records and documents attached

in the Complaint. She is unmindful of her actions and did not fully
understand the consequences of her transactions;

10. Contrary to the testimony of Elea Montes that she interpreted

the contents of the documents before Conchita Mabaling signed it,
petitioner contradicts such statement;
11. Petitioner was not assisted by Elea Montes or by any other
respondents staff when she filed the claim for death benefits. Had
she known that signing the document would deny her of her
rights, she would not sign that document;
12. Petitioners educational background hindered her from
asserting her right immediately, and such limitation on the
intellectual capacity of the petitioner was used by herein
respondent to their advantage. It was only thirty- one years after
the said event that she realized her right to claim for the death
benefits of her husband being the legitimate spouse of the
deceased member;
13. Petitioner would also like to further support her claim by
citing Article 1330 of the New Civil Code which states that A
contract where consent is given through mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. Undue
influence is further explained in Article 1337 of the same Code
stating There is undue influence when a person takes improper
advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the
latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. One of the circumstances
mentioned in the same article is ignorance;
14. Notwithstanding the document signed by the petitioner, could
still be validly annulled for it was tainted by undue influence;
15. Furthermore, petitioner would like to stress that such delay in
filing of the complaint was not unreasonable for it did not

prejudice any third person- petitioner is claiming what is duly

accorded to her by law, the money that she rightfully deserves
because her husband deceased Jose Mabaling has toiled for these
benefits for decades ;
16. Deceased Jose Mabaling faithfully paid his contributions to
herein respondent having in mind that when he is gone, his family
could claim their rightful benefits from herein respondent that
would in a way, compensate for his death;
17. On a final note, refusal of herein respondent to grant the claim
of Conchita Mabaling would run counter to the mandate of their
corporation which is to promote social justice and provide
meaningful protection to members and their families against the
hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death and other
contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden.
Toward this end, the State shall endeavor to extend social security
protection to workers and their beneficiaries.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner still most
respectfully prays that judgement of this Honorable Commission
be rendered ordering respondent to:
1. Acknowledge Consing Reyes Mabaling and Conchita Reyes
Mabaling as one and the same person, wife of the deceased Jose
Mabaling;
2. Grant petitioners claim for death benefits as the wife, therefore
beneficiary of the deceased;
3. Award moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00 to herein
petitioner for the mental anguish and serious anxiety she suffered
due to the refusal of herein respondent to grant her claim;

4. Pay attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount

adjudged to the petitioner as well as the cost of the litigation.
This 04th day of August 2006, Zamboanga City.
Atty. Rhea Doll Gonzalo
Notary Public