You are on page 1of 16

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY.

JIMENO)
CASES:

SSS CASES
14.AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC. and ANTONIO F. MATEO,
petitioners, vs. ELIZA R. LOPEZ, respondent.

1. THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. THE


HON. JUDGE FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., respondents.
1. THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. THE
HON. JUDGE FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., respondents.
2. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. RIZAL
POULTRY and LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO Facts:
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
The Faculty Club of the University of Santo Tomas, Inc. and San Beda
BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO, respondents.
College Lay Faculty Club, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief with
3. REPUBLIC vs ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE
preliminary injunction alleging in substance that they have existing
agreements with their respective employers the University of Santo
4. POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO., petitioner, vs. JUDITH Tomas and San Beda College for the establishment of gratuity and
ASIAIN, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, and BENITO retirement funds which have been in operation prior to September 1,
MACRHON, in his capacity as Sheriff of Rizal, 1957; that the Social Security Commission tried to compel them to
respondents.
integrate their private systems into the Social Security System on said
date; that inasmuch as their private systems grant more benefits to
5. CANO CHUA vs CA, SSC
the members than the Social Security System the integration of their
6. BEN STA. RITA , petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, private systems would deprive their members of property without due
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SOCIAL process of law, as well as would impair the obligation of their contract
SECURITY SYSTEM, respondents.
to the detriment of the members. They prayed for the issuance of
preliminary injunction ex parte commanding the Social Security
7. G.R. No. 165545. March 24, 2006.] SOCIAL SECURITY Commission to desist from compelling them to integrate during the
SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE pendency of the case on the ground that, unless said Commission is
BAILON, respondent.
enjoined, it might enforce the penal provisions of the Social Security
8. IN RE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA VS SOCIAL Act.
SECURITY COMMISSION
9. ELENA P. DYCAICO , petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY Issue:
SYSTEM
and
SOCIAL
SECURITY
COMMISSION,
respondents.
Whether or not their integration to the SSS would mean the
destruction of their existing private systems
10.SSS VS DAVAC ET AL
11.FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION VS ROSETE
Ruling:
12.SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, JOSE V. MARTEL, OLGA S. MARTEL, and No. The most that can happen would be a diminution of benefits in
SYSTEMS AND ENCODING CORPORATION, respondents.
proportion to the reduction of the contributions to their private
systems. But while they may suffer such reduction in benefits they
13.MACHUCA TILE CO. INC VS SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
also stand to benefit under the government system. Bear in mind that
the integration does not mean the discontinuance of the private
1

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

system for under the law three alternatives are open to respondents in
effecting the integration. In other words, respondents may continue
with whatever private social systems they may have at present as a
complement to the benefits afforded to them under the government
system without prejudice to their integration into the government
security system.

were not independent and integral steps in the essential operations of


the company, which is engaged in the poultry business. Angeles
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari.
The appellate court affirmed the NLRC ruling and upheld the absence
of employer-employee relationship. The SSC, however, did not take
into consideration the decision of the NLRC. It ratiocinated that the
decisions of the NLRC and other tribunals on the issue of the existence
of employer-employee relationship between parties are not binding on
The possible damages respondents may suffer are their contributions the Commission.
and those of their employers to the government security system. But The respondents sought recourse before the CA in which the latter
restoration of said contributions had been assured by petitioner should reversed the rulings of the SSC and held that there is a common issue
the provision under consideration be declared unconstitutional and between the cases before the SSC and in the NLRC; and it is whether
invalid. There can always be an appropriate arrangement to provide there existed an employer-employee relationship between Angeles
for refund in the event of such circumstance. Surely, the millions of and respondents.
pesos available to the Social Security System would be more than
sufficient to compensate respondents for the contributions they have SSC maintains that the prior judgment rendered by the NLRC and
made.
Court of Appeals, that no employer-employee relationship existed
between the parties, does not have the force of res judicata by prior
2. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. RIZAL judgment or as a rule on the conclusiveness of judgment. It contends
POULTRY and LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO that the labor dispute and the SSC claim do not proceed from the
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and BENJAMIN SAN same cause of action in that the action before SSC is for nonDIEGO, respondents.
remittance of SSS contributions while the NLRC case was for illegal
dismissal.
Facts:
Angeles filed a petition before the Social Security Commission (SSC) to
compel respondents Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc. (Rizal
Poultry) or BSD Agro Industrial Development Corporation (BSD Agro) to
remit to the Social Security System (SSS) all contributions due for and
in his behalf.

Issue:
Whether the decision of NLRC on the existence of employer-employee
relationship binds upon the SSC case
Ruling:

Yes. The mandatory coverage under the Social Security Act is


premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This
Prior to the filing of the petition, Angeles filed a complaint for illegal is evident from Section 9 (a) which provides:
dismissal against BSD Agro and/or its owner, Benjamin San Diego (San
Diego). The Labor Arbiter initially found that Angeles was an employee SEC. 9.Coverage. (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon
and that he was illegally dismissed. On appeal, however, the NLRC all employees not over sixty (60) years of age and their employers:
reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision and held that no employer- Provided, That in the case of domestic helpers, their monthly income
employee relationship existed between Angeles and respondents. The shall not be less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) a month . . . .
ruling was anchored on the finding that the duties performed by
Angeles, such as carpentry, plumbing, painting and electrical works,
2

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

Section 8 (d) of the same law defines an employee as any person who
performs services for an employer in which either or both mental or
physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such
services, where there is an employer-employee relationship. The illegal
dismissal case before the NLRC involved an inquiry into the existence
or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship. The very
same inquiry is needed in the SSC case. And there was no indication
therein that there is an essential conceptual difference between the
definition of "employee" under the Labor Code and the Social Security
Act.

received, respondent cooperative continuously ignored the demand of


petitioner SSS. Respondent cooperative alleges that its ownersmembers own the cooperative, thus, no employer-employee
relationship can arise between them.

In the instant case, therefore, res judicata in the concept of


"conclusiveness of judgment" applies. The judgment in the NLRC case
pertaining to a finding of an absence of employer-employee
relationship between Angeles and respondents is conclusive on the
SSC case. (know the elements of res judicata same identity of
parties, cause of action, remedy/relief prayed for).

YES. An owner-member of a cooperative can be an employee of the


latter and an employer-employee relationship can exist between them.
A cooperative acquires juridical personality upon its registration with
the Cooperative Development Authority. It has its Board of Directors,
which directs and supervises its business; meaning, its Board of
Directors is the one in charge in the conduct and management of its
affairs. With that, a cooperative can be likened to a corporation with a
personality separate and distinct from its owners-members. It is true
that the Service Contracts executed between the respondent
cooperative and Stanfilco expressly provide that there shall be no
employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative
and its owners-members. However, the existence of an employeremployee relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it
in a contract, when the terms and surrounding circumstances show
otherwise. The employment status of a person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. It is
settled that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
classes, terms and conditions as they want, and their agreement
would have the force of law between them. However, the agreed
terms and conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, customs,
public policy or public order. The Service Contract provision in question
must be struck down for being contrary to law and public policy since
it is apparently being used by the respondent cooperative merely to
circumvent the compulsory coverage of its employees, who are also its
owners-members, by the Social Security !aw. The four elements in
determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship are
all present in this case: First, it is expressly provided in the Service
Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the exclusive
discretion in the selection and engagement of the owners-members as

3. REPUBLIC vs ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE


FACTS:
Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members. Its
primary objectives are to provide savings and credit facilities and to
develop other livelihood services for its owners-members. In the
discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives, respondent cooperative
entered into several Service Contracts with Stanfilco. The ownersmembers do not receive compensation or wages from the respondent
cooperative. Instead, they receive a share in the service surplus which
Asiapro earns from different areas of trade it engages in, such as the
income derived from the said Service Contracts with Stanfilco. In order
to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997, the
owners-members of Asiapro in Stanfilco requested the services of the
latter to register them with SSS as self-employed and to remit their
contributions as such. Petitioner SSS sent a letter to respondent
cooperative informing the latter that based on the Service Contracts it
executed with Stanfilco, Asiapro is actually a manpower contractor
supplying employees to Stanfilco and so, it is an employer of its
owners-members working with Stanfilco. Thus, Asiapro should register
itself with petitioner SSS as an employer and make the corresponding
report and remittance of premium contributions. Despite letters
3

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between
Stanfilco and its owner-members.
HELD:

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


well as its team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco. Second, the
weekly stipends or the so-called shares in the service surplus given by
the respondent cooperative to its owners-members were in reality
wages, as the same were equivalent to an amount not lower than that
prescribed by existing labor laws, rules and regulations, including the
wage order applicable to the area and industry, they are also given to
the owners-members as compensation in rendering services to
respondent cooperatives client, Stanfilco. Third, it is the respondent
cooperative which has the power to investigate, discipline and remove
the owners-members and its team leaders who were rendering
services at Stanfilco. Fourth and most importantly, it is the
respondent cooperative which has the sole control over the manner
and means of performing the services under the Service Contracts
with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods of work. All these
clearly prove that, indeed, there is an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members.

SSS CASES

RESPONDENT: moved to dismiss the petitioner stating that SSS has no


jurisdiction over the subject matter and that Judith has no capacity to
sue
SSC: denied respondent's motion and ordered respondent to file his
answer. When no answer was filed, SSS declared respondent in default
and allowed petitioner to present evidence.
RESOLUTION: declared itself without jurisdiction to entertain
the claims in the petition except the one for the sum of P3,600,
which it awarded based on the evidences presented.
RESPONDENT: Motion for reconsideration was filed but the SSC denied
it.
RESPONDENT: Elevated the case for review before the CA which issued
a writ of preliminary injunction

4. POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO., petitioner, vs. JUDITH ASIAIN,


Case was certified to this Court for the reason that when the
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, and BENITO MACRHON, in his
respondents below were declared in default they lost their standing
capacity as Sheriff of Rizal, respondents.
before the Commission, and not having regained the same by a
DOCTRINE:The collection of the employee's share is a duty imposed motion to set aside or petition for relief, they had no right to appeal
by law, and his unwillingness to have it deducted from his salary does from the default judgment; and that in any event no questions of fact
not excuse the employer's failure to make the report aforesaid. It is are involved and hence, if at all appealable, the appeal should be
precisely in this situation that the employer is liable, and there is no directly to this Court
question as to the amount of such liability in this case.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or no the SSC has jurisdiction to decide and grant awards
when the employee himself refuses to have his share of the
Miguel Asiain was an employee of the Poblete Construction
corresponding monthly contributions deducted from his salary
Company from 1956 until his death on November 22, 1959, with a
monthly salary of P300.
HELD:
Upon his death his widow, Judith Asiain, for herself and her minor
This claim was filed under Section 24 of the Social Security Act (R.A.
children, filed a petition before the Social Security Commission against
1161, as amended) 'SEC. 24. Employment records and reports: a)
the company and its manager, Domingo Poblete, to recover the
each employer shall report immediately to the System... Provided,
following sums:
That if an employee subject to compulsory coverage should die or
(1) P3,600.00 equivalent to one year's salary of the deceased;
become sick or disabled without the System having previously
(2) P600.00 representing his unpaid salary for two months;
received a report about him from his employer, the said employer
(3) P288,00 "representing the cash received by respondents from
shall pay to the employee or his legal heirs damages equivalent to the
their laborers as contribution to the family of the deceased;" and
benefits to which said employee would have been entitled had his
(4) P2,000.00 by way of attorney's fees.
name been reported on time by the employer to the System."
4

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


It appears that although the deceased Miguel Asiain had been
employed in the Poblete Construction Company since 1956 and had
accomplished SSS Form E-1 (Employees' Date Record) and transmitted
the same to the said company's Manila Office, it was never filed with
the Social Security System for the reason that he refused to have his
share of the corresponding monthly contributions deducted from his
salary.
The company maintains that the deceased was not a member of
the System when he died and hence the adjudication of the claim for
damages does not pertain to the Commission but to the courts of
justice.
We find the argument untenable It was the duty of the employer
to comply with Section 24.
Section 5(a) of the Social Security Act provides that "the filing,
determination and settlement of claims shall be governed by the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission;" and the rules and
regulations thus promulgated state that "the effectivity of membership
in the System, as well as the final determination and settlement of
claims, shall be vested in the Commission."
5. CANO CHUA vs CA, SSC
This is a petition for Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the
CA affirming the order of the SSC which held that the private
respondents were regular employees of the petitioner and ordered
petitioner to pay SSS for its unpaid contributions, as well as penalty for
the delayed remittance.

SSS CASES
were not regular employees but were project employees whose work
had been fixed for a specific project or undertaking which completion
is determined at the time of their engagement. He also concluded that
the said employees were not entitled to coverage under the SSA. The
SSS filed a petition in intervention and on February 1, 1995, the SSC
issued its Order which ruled in favor of private respondents, stating
that the petitioner should pay the SSS and the unpaid SS/EC and
contributions plus penalty for the delayed remittance. The SSC denied
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner for lack of merit.
The petitioner then filed a Motion for Review to the CA, claiming the
same that the private respondents are project employees whose
period of employment are terminated upon completion of the project
and that no employer-employee relationship existed between them.
Thus, there no being employer-employee relationship, the private
respondents are not entitled to coverage under the SSA and that their
length of service did not change their status from project employees
to regular employees. Petitioner also questioned the failure to apply
the rules on prescription of actions and of laches for filing six to eight
later after they were taken in by the petitioner. The CA, citing Article
280 of the Labor Code declared that the private respondents were all
regular employees in relation to certain activities since they all worked
either as masons, carpenters and fine graders in the petioles various
projects for at least one year, and that their work was necessary
desirable to petitioner's business which involved the construction or
roads and bridges. The CA rejected the claim of prescription stating
that the filing of private respondents claim was well within the twenty
year period provided by the SSA. Petitioner then filed with the SC a
Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTS: On August 20, 1985 private respondents Paguio, Canale,


Pangan, Trinidad, Tapang and Maliwat filed a petition with the SSC for ISSUE:
SSS coverage and contributions against Chua, owner of Prime Mover
Construction Development, claiming that they were all regular
Whether or not the private respondents are regular employees
employees of the petitioner in his construction business. They also
and thus entitled to claim for SSS.
alleged that they were dismissed without justifiable grounds and
without notice to them with the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
Whether or not the private respondents claim to be covered by
They further alleged that petitioner did not report them to the SSS for
the SSS already prescribed.
compulsory coverage in flagrant violation of the Social Security Act.
Chua in his answer claimed that private respondents had no cause of HELD:
action against him and assuming that there was any, they were barred
by prescription and laches. He also claimed that private respondents 1) YES. The SC affirmed the CA's decision and held that there is no
dispute that private respondents were employees of petitioner who
5

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


became regular employees by their being repeated re-hiring. There is
an employer-employee relationship existing between the parties
having control over the results of the work done by the private
respondents as well as the means and methods by which the same
were accomplished. The private respondents are subject of the
compulsory coverage under the SSS Law. (it is not required to
establish what kind of employee, in this case whether project or
regular, as long as there is employee-employer relationship. The
employee- employer relationship is what is required to be under the
Social Security System)

SSS CASES
years or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That where the
violation consists in failure or refusal to register employees or himself,
in case of the covered self-employed, or to deduct contributions from
the employees' compensation and remit the same to the SSS, the
penalty shall be a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) and imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years.

The RTC sustained petitioners motion and dismiss the criminal case. It
ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the
2) NO. Their claim for the SSS coverage has not prescribed and not Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Social
guilty of laches, their right to claim would only prescribe after the Security System ("SSS") extending the coverage of Social Security,
period of 20 years.
Medical Care and Employment Compensation laws to Filipino seafarers
on board foreign vessels was null and void as it was entered into by
6. BEN STA. RITA , petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE the Administrator of the SSS without the sanction of the Commission
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SOCIAL SECURITY
and approval of the President of the Philippines, in contravention of
SYSTEM, respondents.
Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended.
Facts:

However, the people, through the OSG, filed in the CA a petition for
Sta. Rita was charged for violating the provisions of the Social Security certiorari assailing the order of dismissal by the trial court. Respondent
Law. It was alleged that he was a President/General manager of B. Sta. CA granted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal
Rita Co., Inc. a compulsorily covered employer under the Social case.
Security Law, as amended, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully In the Petition for Review, petitioner Sta. Rita contends that the Filipino
fail, neglect and refuse and still fails, neglects and refuses to remit to seafarers recruited by B. Sta. Rita Co. and deployed on board foreign
the Social Security System contributions for SSS, Medicare and vessels outside the Philippines are exempt from the coverage of R.A.
Employees Compensation for its covered employees." Petitioner Sta. No. 1161 under Section 8 (j) (5) thereof:
Rita moved to dismiss said criminal case alleging that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense and that the RTC has no "Terms Defined
jurisdiction over the case.
EMPLOYMENT Any service performed by an employee for his
WHY CRIMINAL? WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE CRIMINAL ASIDE FROM employer, except
ESTAFA WHEN IT IS NOT REMITTED? criminal liability for violation of
xxx xxx xxx
Section 22 (a) and (b) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as
amended. Section 28 being the PENAL CLAUSE of the said law
(5) Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an
(e) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Act or employee if he is employed when such vessel is outside the
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission, shall Philippines xxxx
be punished by a ?ne of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) Issue:
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
6

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

Whether or not Filipino seafarers on board vessels are exempted from binds petitioner Sta. Rita or B. Sta. Rita Company, who is solidarily
the SSS Law
liable with the foreign shipowners/employers.
Ruling:
No.

It is, finally, worthy of special note that by extending the benefits of


the Social Security Act to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels,
the individual employment agreements entered into with the
stipulation for such coverage contemplated in the DOLE-SSS
Memorandum of Agreement, merely give effect to the constitutional
mandate to the State to afford protection to labor whether "local or
overseas. " Nullification of the SSS stipulation in those individual
employment contracts, through nullification of the Memorandum of
Agreement, constituted serious reversible error on the part of the trial
court. That petitioner should seek to deprive his countrymen of social
security protection after his foreign principal had agreed to such
protection, is cause for dismay and is to be deplored.

What the Memorandum of Agreement did was to record the


understanding between the SSS on the one hand and the DOLE on the
other hand that the latter would include among the provisions of the
Standard Contract of Employment required in case of overseas
employment, a stipulation providing for coverage of the Filipino
seafarer by the SSS. The Memorandum of Agreement is not an
implementing rule or regulation of the Social Security Commission
which is subject to the approval of the President. Indeed, as a matter
of strict law, the participation of the SSS in the establishment by the
DOLE of a uniform stipulation in the Standard Contract of Employment 7. [G.R. No. 165545. March 24, 2006.] SOCIAL SECURITY
for Filipino seafarers was not necessary; the Memorandum of SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON,
Agreement related simply to the administrative convenience of the respondent.
two (2) agencies of government.
DOCTRINE:
The Court finds no merit in petitioner's contention that Section 8 (j) (5)
of R.A. No. 1161, as amended, absolutely exempts Filipino seafarers on The law does not give the SSC unfettered discretion to trifle with
board foreign vessels from the coverage of the SSS statute. Section 8 orders of regular courts in the exercise of its authority to determine
(j) (5) simply defines the term "employment" and does not in any way the beneficiaries of the SSS.
relate to the scope of coverage of the Social Security System. That
coverage is, upon the other hand, set out in Section 9 of R.A. No. 1161 SYNOPSIS
as amended, which defines the scope of SSS coverage in the following Clemente Bailon was allegedly married to 3 woman. His first marriage
terms:
was with Alice Diaz, Clemente later filed a petition to declare Alice

"SECTION 9. Compulsory Coverage. (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be presumptively dead (despite still being alive). His second marriage
compulsory upon all employees not over sixty years of age and their was with Elisa. The third marriage was with Teresita Jarque who is the
respondent in this case. Teresita, upon the death of Clemente filed a
employers; Provided, . . .
claim in the SSS as a beneficiary of Clemente Bailon, this was
(b) Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for approved by the SSS. Elisa together with her daughters opposed
employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis." Teresita's claim stating that since the 1 st wife Alice was still alive
Teresita's marriage was void thus she cannot claim benefits under the
(The SSS law coverage is written into the contract)
law. Elisa and Clemente's children filed claims for death benefits. The
The extension of the coverage of the Social Security System to Filipino SSS cancelled Teresita's claim and ordered a refund of the benefits
seafarers arises by virtue of the assent given in the contract of given to her, it also declared Alice as the legal beneficiary being the
employment signed by employer and seafarer; that same contract legitimate wife thus entitled to the benefits. The court held that the
SSS has the power to settle any dispute with respect to SSS coverage,
7

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

benefits and contributions but the SSC is not given unfettered


discretion to trifle with orders of regular courts in the exercise of its
authority to determine the beneficiaries of the SSS. The marriage was
contracted prior to the Family Code then the civil code would be the
prevailing law, since no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with
law, Bailon's and respondent's marriage prior to the former's death in
1998, respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of
Bailon,

Cecilia and Norma contest the marriage between Bailon and


respondent as they personally know that Alice is "still very much
alive."

FACTS

Elisa (2nd wife) and seven of her children subsequently filed claims for
death benefits as Bailon's beneficiaries before the SSS.

On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice)
contracted marriage in Barcelona, Sorsogon. More than 15 years later
or on October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the CFI of Sorsogon a
petition to declare Alice presumptively dead the CFI granted the
petition

Hermes P. Diaz, claiming to be the brother and guardian of "Aliz P.


Diaz," filed before the SSS a claim for death benefits, he further
attests in a sworn statement that it was Norma who defrayed Bailon's
funeral expenses.

Atty. Marites C. de la Torre of the Legal Unit of the SSS recommended:


Cancellation of payment of death benefits to respondent and order the
refund of the benefits from respondent. Declared Alice as the
beneficiary and ordered the payment of Clemente Bailon Pension to
Alice.

Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared presumptively dead
Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque (respondent) in The deceased member was the deserting spouse and who remarried,
thus his marriage to Teresita Jarque, for the second time was void as it
Casiguran, Sorsogon
was bigamous
Bailon a member of the SSS and a retiree pensioner DIED.
SSS Sorsogon Branch, by letter of August 16, 2000, advised
Respondent filed a claim for funeral benefits, and was granted P12,000 respondent that as Cecilia and Norma were the ones who defrayed
by the SSS. Additional death benefits claimed were also granted by Bailon's funeral expenses, she should return the P12,000 paid to her.
SSS
In another letter, SSS advised respondent of the cancellation of her
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia), who claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and monthly pension for death benefits in view of the opinion rendered by
one Elisa Jayona (Elisa) contested before the SSS the release to its legal department that her marriage with Bailon was void as it was
respondent of the death and funeral benefits.
contracted while the latter's marriage with Alice was still subsisting. It
thus requested respondent to return the amount of P24,000
She claimed that Bailon contracted three marriages in his representing the total amount of monthly pension she had received
lifetime, the first with Alice, the second with her mother Elisa, and the from the SSS from February 1998 to May 1999.
third with respondent, all of whom are still alive; she, together with her
siblings, paid for Bailon's medical and funeral expenses; and all the Respondent protested the cancellation of her monthly pension for
documents submitted by respondent to the SSS in support of her death benefits by letter to the SSS asserting that her marriage with
claims are spurious.
Bailon was not declared before any court of justice as bigamous or
unlawful, hence, it remained valid and subsisting for all legal intents
Cecilia and her sister Norma Bailon Chavez (Norma) submitted an and purposes as in fact Bailon designated her as his beneficiary.
Affidavit averring that they are two of nine children of Bailon and Elisa
who cohabited as husband and wife with Clemente Bailon
The SSS, by letter to respondent denial of her claim. It advised her
that she was not deprived of her right to file a petition with the SSC.

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


Respondent thus filed a petition against the SSS before the SSC for the
restoration to her of her entitlement to monthly pension. In lieu of
such she informed SSS that she was returning under protest the
amount of P12,000 representing funeral benefits which she couldn't
spend because Norma and her siblings stopped her from spending.

SSS CASES
Petition is denied
Yes, SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to SSS
coverage, benefits and contributions, there is no doubt. In so
exercising such power, however, it cannot review, much less
reverse, decisions rendered by courts of law as it did in the case
at bar when it declared that the December 10, 1970 CFI Order was
obtained through fraud and subsequently disregarded the same,
making its own findings with respect to the validity of Bailon and
Alice's marriage on the one hand and the invalidity of Bailon and
respondent's marriage on the other.

After the SSS filed its Answer to respondent's petition, and the parties
filed their respective Position Papers, one Alicia P. Diaz filed an
Affidavit dated August 14, 2002 with the SSS Naga Branch attesting
that she is the widow of Bailon; she had only recently come to know of
the petition filed by Bailon to declare her presumptively dead; it is not
true that she disappeared as Bailon could have easily located her, she
having stayed at her parents' residence in Barcelona, Sorsogon after In interfering with and passing upon the CFI Order, the SSC virtually
she found out that Bailon was having an extramarital affair; and Bailon acted as an appellate court. The law does not give the SSC
unfettered discretion to trifle with orders of regular courts in
used to visit her even after their separation
the exercise of its authority to determine the beneficiaries of
By Resolution of April 2, 2003, the SSC found that the marriage of the SSS.
respondent to Bailon was void and, therefore, she was "just a
common-law-wife." Teresita was declared not a legitimate spouse, Since the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family
not the primary beneficiary of Bailon and that she should refund all the Code, the Civil Code would be the prevailing law.
benefits she has received.
If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the
RESPONDENT: motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus a subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such
absentee's mere reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in
petition for review was filed before the CA.
the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage. Since the
CA: reversed the SSC Resolution the court held that the only second marriage has been contracted because of a presumption that
competent court can nullfy a marriage, in this case SSS cannot validly the former spouse is dead, such presumption continues inspite of the
declare the 2nd marriage null and void on the basis of its own spouse's physical reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she must
investigation. Respondent SSS cannot arrogate upon itself the still be regarded as legally an absentee until the subsequent marriage
authority to review the decision of the regular courts under the pretext is terminated as provided by law
of determining the actual and lawful beneficiaries of its members.
It bears reiterating that a voidable marriage cannot be assailed
SSC and SSS: separately filed their Motions for Reconsideration 37 collaterally except in a direct proceeding. Consequently, such
which were both denied for lack of merit.
marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and
not after the death of either, in which case the parties and their
SSS: Filed a petitioner for review on certiorari
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid. Upon
the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made
ISSUE:
good ab initio.
Whether or not the SSC gravely abused its discretion
In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with
HELD
law, Bailon's and respondent's marriage prior to the former's death in

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

1998, respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of No. It is not controlling where the plain purpose and intent of the
Bailon.
Legislature would thereby be hindered and defeated.
8. IN RE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA VS SOCIAL
SECURITY COMMISSION
FACTS:

The Roman Catholic Archbishop Of Manila filed with the


Social Security Commission a request that Catholic Charities
and all religious and charitable institutions and organizations
which are directly or indirectly, wholly or partially operated by
the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila be EXCEMPTED from
compulsory coverage of Social Security Law

RA1161 Excluded in the coverage of religious and charitable


institutions or entities not organized for profits

RA1161 amended 1792 specifically stated that it is included


in the coverage of religious and charitable institutions or
entities not organized for profit

CONTRIBUTION not considered public funds, held in trust for the


members of SSS. SSS pays priest for sickness, accident, disability or
death... it is extended to him not as a priest but as a member of the
SSS.

The request was based on the claim that the said act is a labor W/N TAXING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? No, this is for the protection of labor,
law and does not cover religious and charitable institutions but it is contribution to be held in trust and returned because of disability,
is limited to businesses and activities organized for profit. The sickness or death
Social Security Commission DENIED the request
The definition of the term employer is sufficiently comprehensive as to
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila reiterating its include religious and charitable institutions or entities not organized
arguments requested for reconsideration, however was DENIED for profit. This is made more evident by the fact that it contains an
exception in which said institutions or entities are not included.
by the Commission

The coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the 9. ELENA P. DYCAICO , petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
existence of an employer-employee relationship of more or less and SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondents.
permanent nature and extends to employment of all kinds FACTS:
except those expressly exclude
Bonifacio S. Dycacio is a member of the SSS. He retired on June 1989.
Appellant contends that the term employer as defined in the A few months prior to his death, he married the petitioner. The
law should following the principle of ejusdem generis be petitioner then filed with SSS an application of survivors pension but
limited to those who carry on undertakings or activities which was denied on the ground that under Sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 she
have the element of profit or gain or which are pursued for couldnt be considered a primary beneficiary because they were not
profit or gain because the phrase activity or any kind in the yet married when
Bonifacio, as conditioned in the mentioned
definition is preceded by the words any trade, business, provision. Petitioner then filed with the SSC (Social Security
industry, undertaing
Commission) a petition alleging that the denial was unjustified for the
reason that the provision itself does not require that the primary
ISSUE:
beneficiaries be legitimate. Furthermore, SSS is legally bound to
respect the deceaseds designation of them as his beneficiaries. SSC
W/N THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS BE APPLIED
promulgated its resolution affirming the denial of the petitioners claim
RULING:

10

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

relying heavily on the definition of a primary beneficiary found in Sec. dependent spouse's claim for survivorship pension if the dependent
8 of the same law.
spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the three-year
prohibited period, was declared offensive to the due process clause.
(he was not given the right to be heard)
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review and the same affirmed NOTE:
in toto the decision of the SSC. Petitioner then filed a motion for
reconsideration in the same court but was again denied.
For clarity, Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 is quoted anew
below: Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits.
The court required the parties as well as OSG to file their respective
comments on the issue. SSS and OSG have the same stance.
xxx xxx xxx
ISSUE/S:

(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as
of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly
WON Sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 violates the equal protection and due pension. . . .
process clauses of the Constitution. - YES
Under Section 8(k) of the same law, the "primary beneficiaries"
HELD:
are:
The purpose of the provision is to prevent sham marriages or those
contracted by persons solely to enable one spouse to claim benefits
upon the anticipated death of the other spouse. In this case, the
assailed provision effectively disqualifies form entitlement to
survivors pension all those dependent spouses whose respective
marriages to retired SSS members were contracted after the latters
retirement irrespective of the duration of marriage. It is therefor,
arbitrary and discriminatory. It unfairly lumps all theses marriages as
sham relationships or were contracted solely for the purpose of
acquiring benefits accruing upon the death of the other spouse. The
proviso thus unduly prejudices the rights of the legal surviving spouse,
like the petitioner, and defeats the avowed policy of the law "to
provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries
against the hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death,
and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial
burden."

1. The dependent spouse until he or she remarries; and


2. The dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
illegitimate children.
Further, the "dependent spouse" and "dependent children" are
qualified under paragraph (e) of the same section as follows:
1. The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support until he or she
remarries; and
2. The dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and
has not reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over
twenty-one years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor
has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of selfsupport, physically or mentally.

Furthermore, court holds that the sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 is 10. SSS VS DAVAC ET AL
unconstitutional for it violates the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Constitution. In an analogous case (GSIS v. FACTS:
Montesclaros) the court invalidated a presidential because the Court
The late Petronillo Davac, a former employee of Lianga Bay
characterized retirement benefits as property interest of the pensioner
Logging Co became a member of the SSS. He was assigned an
as well as his or her surviving spouse. The proviso, which denied a
SSS number and designated respondent Candelaria Davac as
11

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


beneficiary and indicated his relationship to her as that of wife.
He died in 1959 and thereupon, each of the respondents
Candelaria Davac & Lourdes Tuplano filed their claims for death
benefit with the SSS. It appears from their respective claims,
the deceased contracted two marriages, first with Tuplano and
second with Candelaria.

SSS CASES

Under other provisions, if there is a named beneficiary and the


designation is not invalid, it is not the heirs of the employee
who are entitled to receive the benefits (unless they are the
designated beneficiaries themselves). It is only when there is
no designated beneficiaries or when the designation is void,
that the laws of succession are applicable. The Social Security
Act is not a law of succession.

The SSS issued the resolution which favored Candelaria Davac.


Respondent Tuplano then appealed.
11. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION VS ROSETE

ISSUE: W/N THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION ACTED FACTS:


CORRECTLY ION DECLARING CANDELARIA DAVAC AS THE
PERSON ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE DEATH BENEFITS IN In 2005, petitioner Fil-Star Maritime Corporation (Fil-Star), the local
manning agency of co-petitioner Grandslam Enterprise Corporation
QUESTION
(Grandslam), hired respondent as third officer on board the oceanRULING: YES. SSS Resolution was affirmed by the SC
going vessel "M/V Ansac Asia." After his first contract expired, he was
re-hired to work as second officer on their vessel for a period of nine
Section 13 of RA 1161, in force at the time of Davacs death (9) months. On board the vessel, he was tasked to make an inventory
provides that upon the death of covered employeehis of the vessels property for annual inspection. According to respondent,
beneficiaries AS RECORDED by his employer shall be entitled to he worked diligently and oftentimes worked odd hours just to
the following benefit. But appellant contends that the familiarize himself with his new job. He averred that overtime work
designation herein made in the person of the second and and the violent motions of the vessel due to weather inclemency
therefore, bigamous wife is null and void
caused undue strain to his eyes and his physical well-being.

Appellant argues that a beneficiary under the SSS partakes the


nature of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy and therefore,
the same qualifications and disqualifications should be applied.

Article 739 of the NCC is not applicable because she was not
guilty of concubinage there being no proof that she had
knowledge of the previous marriage. The provision provides
that donations shall be void between persons who were guilty
of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.

12

Regarding the second point raised by appellant, the benefits


accruing from membership in the Social Security System do
not form part of the properties of the conjugal partnership of
the covered member. They are disbursed from a public special
fund created by Congress in pursuance to the declared policy
of the Republic "to develop, establish gradually and perfect
a social security system which ... shall provide protection
against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death."

A little over a month from his embarkation, respondent


experienced an abrupt blurring of his left eye. After several
delays, He reported it to his captain and was advised to do an
eye wash to relieve his pain. Respondent was able to receive
medical attention in Kawasaki, Japan and was diagnosed with
Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) and immediately
underwent three rounds of laser surgery.

On March 9, 2006, respondent was declared fit for travel and


was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. On March 19,
2006, he experienced severe pain in his left eye so he insisted
that he be admitted to the hospital. Respondent underwent
another series of laser surgery. His left eye was later declared
to be legally blind with poor possibility of recovery.

The petitioners denied his claim for permanent total disability


and only rated his incapacity as Grade 7. Respondent stressed
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)


that, under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), he
should be considered legally blind meriting entitlement to
permanent total disability benefits in the sum of
US$105,000.00 for being unable to perform his job for more
than 120 days from his repatriation. Thus respondent filed a
complaint against Fil-Star, Capt. Victorio S. Migallos and
Grandslam for disability benefits, damages and attorneys fees.

SSS CASES

(2) The Court is more inclined to rule that respondent is


suffering from a permanent total disability as he was unable to
return to his job that he was trained to do for more than one
hundred twenty days already. To recall, a disability is total and
permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee
is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous
period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in
Rule X of these Rules. A total disability does not require that
the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What
is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee
cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom.

Therefore, it is fitting that respondent be entitled to permanent


total disability benefits considering that he would not able to
resume his position as a maritime officer and the probability
that he would be hired by other maritime employers would be
close to impossible. Indeed, a sight-impaired maritime
applicant cannot stand in the same footing as his healthy coapplicant.

(3) The Court holds that respondent is entitled to claim


permanent total disability benefits based on his POEA-SEC and
not based on their CBA as earlier ruled by the L.A. and later
affirmed by the CA

ISSUE:
Whether respondent is entitled to claim disability benefits from the
petitioners
Whether respondent is entitled to be awarded permanent total or
permanent partial disability benefits
Whether respondents entitlement to permanent total disability
benefits should be based on the CBA or his POEA-SEC which
integrated the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board OceanGoing Vessels.
HELD:

13

(1) There is no quibble that respondent is entitled to disability


benefits. In this case, respondent was diagnosed with CRVO of
his left eye which causes painless vision loss which is usually
The CBA provisions on disability are not applicable to
sudden, but it can also occur gradually over a period of days to
respondents case because Article 28 thereon specifically refers
weeks. This condition, despite numerous medical procedures
to disability sustained after an accident. Respondent failed to
undertaken, eventually led to a total loss of sight of
show that the blurring of his left eye was caused by an accident
respondents left eye. Loss of one bodily function falls within the
on board the ship. Thus, Article 28 of the CBA cannot be used
definition of disability which is essentially "loss or impairment
to compute his disability benefits.
of a physical or mental function resulting from injury or
sickness."
12. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JOSE V. MARTEL, OLGA S. MARTEL, and SYSTEMS AND
Although CRVO is not listed as one of the occupational diseases ENCODING CORPORATION, respondents.
under Section 32-A of the 2000 Amended Terms of POEA-SEC,
the resulting disability which is loss of sight of one eye, is FACTS:
specifically mentioned in Section 32 thereof. More importantly,
Respondents Jose V. Martel and Olga S. Martel (respondent Martels)
Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) states that "those illnesses not
are directors of respondent Systems and Encoding Corporation
listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as
work-related."
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

(SENCOR), an information technology firm, with respondent Jose V. DOJ Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee set aside Prosecutor Puti's
Martel serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors
Resolution and ordered the withdrawal of the Information filed in
Criminal case. The DOJ found that respondent Martels and petitioner
Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation entered into a compromise agreement before the filing of the
mandated by its charter, RA 1161, to provide financial benefits to Information in Criminal Case and that such "negated" any criminal
private sector employees
liability on respondent Martels' part.
SENCOR is covered by RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282, Section 22 Petitioner sought reconsideration but the DOJ denied its motion in the
of which requires employers to remit monthly contributions to Resolution of 20 September 2001.
petitioner representing the share of the employer and its employees.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari
SSS: filed with Pasay City Prosecutor's office a complaint against and it affrmed the DOJ's rulings and dismissed petitioner's petition.
respondent for NON-PAYMENT of contributions (worth P6M January
1991 May 1997)
ISSUE:
MARTELS and 5 ACCUSED (SENCOR): offered to assign to SSS a parcel Whether or not the concept of novation serves to abate the
of land in Tagaytay for payment of their contributions
prosecution of respondent Martels for violation of Section 22 (a) and
(b) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as amended.
SSS: Accepted on the condition that respondent will settle their
obligation by way of dacion en pago or through cash settlement within HELD:
reasonable tme. SSS withdrew the complaint from the Prosecutors
NO, Novation, a civil law concept relating to the modification of
office which the latter accordinly dismissed.
obligations, takes place when the parties to an existing contract
RESPONDENT MARTEL: wrote to SSS that instead of the land, they will execute a new contract which either changes the object or
offer computer related services.
principal condition of the original contract, substitutes the
person of the debtor, or subrogates a third person in the
SSS: filed with the Pasay City Prosecutor's office another complaint for rights of the creditor. The effect is either to modify or
non-remittances of contribution (February 1991 to October 2000)
extinguish the original contract. In its extinctive form, the new
Pasay City Assistant Prosecutor Artemio Puti found probable cause to obligation replaces the original, extinguishing the obligor's obligations
indict respondent Martels for violation of Section 22 (a) and (b) in under the old contract.
relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282.
Prosecutor Puti rejected respondent Martels' claim of "negation" of
criminal liability by novation, holding that (1) SENCOR's criminal
liability was already "consummated" before respondent Martels
offered to pay SENCOR's liability and (2) the dacion en pago involving
the Tagaytay City property did not materialize.

although novation is not one of the means recognized by the Revised


Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability, it may "prevent the rise of
criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original
basic transaction," provided the novation takes place before the filing
of the Information with the trial court.

The facts of this case negate the application of novation. In the first
The Pasay City Prosecutor's Office filed with the Regional Trial Court of place, there is, between SENCOR and petitioner, no original contract
Pasay City the corresponding Information against respondent Martels
that can be replaced by a new contract changing the object or
principal condition of the original contract, substituting the person of
Respondent Martels appealed to the DOJ.
the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.

14

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

SSS CASES

The original relationship between SENCOR and petitioner is defined by


law.

death benefits was filed with the System by Prudencio Jungay,


brother of the deceased, as one of the legal heirs. The claim
was duly processed by the System's Claims Department, and in
the course thereof, it discovered that the deceased was
reported by the petitioner for coverage in the System only on
September 5, 1962, when the premiums on this account were
remitted to the System. After processing of the claim, the
Claims Department adjudicated the sum of P810.00 as death
benefits payable to the deceased's legal heirs, namely:
Prudencio, Rogelio, Tranquilino, and Patricio, all surnamed
Jungay, but in view of the failure of the petitioner to report his
coverage prior to his death on June 17, 1962, the Acting
Administrator of the Social Security System declared the
petitioner liable to pay to the said heirs the amount of P810.00
as adjudicated by the Claims Department.Taking exception to
this ruling, the petitioner filed the instant petition."

no amount of agreements between petitioner and SENCOR


(represented by respondent Martels) can change the nature of their
relationship and the consequence of SENCOR's non-payment of
contributions.
As correctly noted by Prosecutor Puto, respondent Martels failed to
make good on their promise in 1998 to settle SENCOR's liability
through dacion en pago as a way to pay for the non-remittance of
SENCOR. The circumstances the DOJ cited as proof of the compromise
agreement's alleged implementation were nothing but steps
preparatory to the actual payment of SENCOR's overdue contributions.
Any payment respondent Martels would have made to petitioner
( respondent Martels partially paid SENCOR's liability) only affects their
civil, if any, but not their criminal liability for violation of Section 22 (a)
and (b) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as amended. Section
28 being the PENAL CLAUSE of the said law
(e) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Act or
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission, shall
be punished by a ?ne of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That where the
violation consists in failure or refusal to register employees or himself,
in case of the covered self-employed, or to deduct contributions from
the employees' compensation and remit the same to the SSS, the
penalty shall be a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) and imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years.

The SSS, after due hearing rendered its resolution affirming the
administrators ruling declaring the petitioner legally liable for
the payment of death benefits to the deceased employees
legal heirs and not the System.

Petitioner applead that months after Eduardo Jungays death, it


had submitted to the System its report and remitted the
corresponding premiums.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE DEATH
BENEFITS OF JUNGAY
RULING:

YES. The petitioners contentions lies in its failure to realize that it has
two distinct obligations under the Social Security Act. The obligation of
making a timely remittance of premiums under Section 22(a) and the
13. MACHUCA TILE CO. INC VS SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
obligation of making a timely report of its employees' names and other
FACTS:
personal data, including the social security number assigned to each
employee, for coverage, under Section 24(a). (The damages as stated
The deceased, Eduardo Jungay, was a former employee of
in the law also covers death benefits)
the petitioner and as such, qualified for compulsory coverage in
December 1961. He died on June 1962, whereupon a claim for
15

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ

LABOR STANDARDS (ATTY. JIMENO)

For failure to make such report in fact excludes the employee


from the System's coverage and the Act therefore shifts to the
erring employer the responsibility of paying the social security
benefits "to which the employee or his heirs would have been
entitled had his name been reported on time by the employer
to the System."
Payment by petitioner of the death benefits in the sum of
P810.00 awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased employee
under the Social Security Commission's Resolution of May 18,
1965 has been delayed pending this unjustified appeal. It is
only just and in accordance with law that the sum due said
heirs bear legal interest of six (6%) percent per annum from
June 4, 1965, date of receipt of said Resolution by petitioner.
ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with the modification that petitioner shall pay the
legal heirs of the deceased Eduardo Jungay six (6%) per cent
interest per annum on the sum of P810.00 from June 4, 1965
until the date of actual payment.

SSS CASES
ground that because of the respondents misrepresentation, they
suffered actual damages.
Respondent filed her Answer with Motion to dismiss claiming that she
was illegally dismissed and that AMECOS deliberately failed to deduct
and remit her SSS contributions.
MeTC dismissed the case. RTC likewise dismissed the case for lack of
merit. CA also dismissed the case and the petition for review is denied
due course.
ISSUE/S:
WON the case should be referred to the Social Security Commission
(SSC) - NO
HELD:

It cannot be assumed that since the dispute concerns the payment of


SSS premiums, petitioners claim should be referred to the SSC
pursuant to RA 1161 as amended by RA 8282. With the petitioner
settling its pecuniary obligation with SSS, there is no longer a dispute
with respect to petitioners accountability to the System.
Consequently, SSC need not be unnecessarily dragged into the
14. AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC. and ANTONIO F. MATEO, picture. It cannot be made to act as a collecting agency for the
petitioners claims against the respondent. the SSS Law should not be
petitioners, vs. ELIZA R. LOPEZ, respondent.
so interpreted because the SSC will be swamped with cases of this
FACTS:
sort.
SSS filed a complaint against the AMECOS, a corporation engaged in
the business of selling assorted products, for alleged delinquency in
the remittance of SSS contributions and penalty liabilities in violation
of Sec. 22(a) and 22 (d) in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of the SSS Law.
AMECOS attributed its failure to remit to the respondent (LOPEZ) who
refused to provide AMECOS with her SSS number and to deduct her
contribution, thus, AMECOS no longer enrolled respondent with SSS.

Considering the facts it is clear that respondent was never covered by


and protected under the System and hence she is not liable or
answerable for required contributions during the period of
employment.

AMECOS eventually settled its obligation with SSS and the latter filed a
Motion to Withdraw Complaint which was approved.
AMECOS sent a demand letter to respondent and subsequently filed a
complaint for sum of money and damages against the latter on the

16

ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ