Brazen move

As expected, and despite protestations to the contrary, they are now floating the idea of legalizing abortion or the taking of the life of an innocent, defenseless, unborn child in the mother’s womb. This latest move just confirms the long held view that the so-called reproductive health and reproductive rights of women, provided for in the RH bill, necessarily presupposes access not only to contraception but also to abortion.

This is indeed a brazen and aggressive move as it is directly in violation of the constitutional mandate protecting the life even of an unborn child in the womb (Article 2, Section 12). In fact in this latest case, the Supreme Court has clearly and categorically declared that the term “child” as used in this Section includes the unborn fetus in the mother’s womb.

This is the case of Rolly, an employee of a steel manufacturing company (CSMC) and a member of a labor union (Union) which has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with CMSC. Among the provisions in the CBA are the grant of 7 to 11 days bereavement leave with pay and death and accident benefits amounting to P11,550 to any employee in case of death of the employee’s legitimate (dependent) parents, spouse, children brothers and sisters.

On January 5, 2006, Rolly’s wife Fe who was then on the 38th week of pregnancy had a premature delivery. According to the Certificate of Fetal Death dated January 7, the female fetus died during labor due to fetal Anoxia secondary to utero-placental insufficiency.

So on January 9, 2006 Rolly filed a claim for Paternity Leave, Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent pursuant to the CBA. CSMC granted Rolly’s claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement and other death benefits particularly the death and accident insurance.

According to the CSMC, the CBA did not contemplate the death of an unborn child, a fetus without legal personality. It reasoned out that a fetus that was dead from the moment of delivery was not a person at all. Hence the term dependent could not be applied to a fetus that never acquired juridical personality. A fetus that was delivered dead could not be considered dependent since it never needed any support, nor did it ever acquire the right to be supported. Was CSMC correct?

No. The rights to bereavement leave and other death benefits in the instant case pertain directly to the parents of the unborn child upon the latter’s death. While the Civil Code expressly provides that civil personality may be extinguished by death, it does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired juridical personality could die.

Death is the cessation of life. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from conception, that the State must protect equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being delivered, qualifies as death.

Likewise, the unborn child can be considered a dependent under the CBA. Even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents. Rolly’s child could not have reached 38-39 weeks of its gestational life without depending upon its mother for sustenance. The CBA did not provide a qualification for the child dependent, such that the child must have been born or must have acquired civil personality. Without such qualification, then child should be understood in its more general sense, which includes the unborn fetus in the mother’s womb. So Rolly is entitled to the bereavement leave pay of P4,939 and other death benefits amounting to P11,550 (Continental Steel Mfg. Corp vs. Montano et.al. etc., G.R. 182836, October 13, 2009). –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net