A labor attorney has warned the public about reaching “misleading and premature conclusions” about the rights of other family members to claim employment benefits of an employee who died while on duty.
Lawyer Lorraine Macasa-Meneses of the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) in Southern Mindanao emphasized that only parents, as lawful beneficiaries, of an unmarried or single employee can claim the death benefits due to the person who died while working.
This was after Eva Walawala Mozo, sister of mining firm employee Joel Walawala, appeared on TV and radio programs insinuating foul play in the death of her brother, despite the official result of a probe by the National Bureau of Investigation yet to come out.
Mozo has decried the employment benefits given to the Walawala family as a “bribe” being given by the management and has insisted that she is the rightful beneficiary of the benefits from the company her brother worked for.
Macasa-Meneses, a former Department of Labor and Employment inspector, noted that siblings cannot claim company benefits without presenting sufficient documents to prove they are blood-related and, most importantly, authorized by the deceased person involved.
Usually, management requests for the birth certificate of the deceased if the parents will be the claimants, the lawyer noted. If the claimant is the sibling, the company will rightfully ask for an affidavit as authority to claim and/or maybe a birth certificate that shows they have the same parents, she added.
Normally, management would also require the lawful claimant to execute a quit claim and waiver to show proof that the benefits due to the employee, whose death was work-related, has been properly compensated, the ALU lawyer added. Richard Orsino
“There is nothing wrong with executing a quit claim for an employee whose death was work-related, as this only serves as a sort of defense for the management that has ostensibly given the due benefits of the deceased,” she added.
Without presenting sufficient evidence and refusing to sign any document regarding the remaining claims of the deceased, the lawyer said there is no lawful recourse for the company but to not release the compensation to a person who could not legally prove being the rightful recipient of the financial benefit.
Meneses also said family members of the deceased should not “maliciously interpret” the financial benefit being given by the company as a bribe, and the waiver as an agreement being forced upon by the company against the family in case the latter wants to seek litigation on the death of their relative.
