1987

A. Mona Lim, married employee of Realty Corporation, is paid a basic salary and in
addition, a monthly living allowance separate from the statutory cost of living allowance.
She receives quarterly bonuses, which are purely discretionary grants by the
management; an, as part of company policy, gets reimbursements for all transportation
expenses she incurs in connection with her sales duties. Her daily meal allowance is a
fixed amount regardless of place of assignment.
The company has been reporting Monas basic monthly salary as her compensation,
which is less than one thousand pesos. When the SSS learned that Mona was receiving
other forms of income, it assessed the company for everything paid or granted to the
employee as part of her compensation.
If you were consulted by the company, what advice would you give your client?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
We will advise Realty Corporation that pursuant to Exec. Order No. 102, compensation is
now defined as including all actual remuneration for employment, including the
mandated cost of living allowance, as well as the cash value of any remuneration paid in
any medium other than cash, except that part of remuneration in excess of three thousand
pesos received during the month.
Given the above very comprehensive definition of compensation, the SSS correctly
assessed the company for everything it paid to the employee as part of compensation,
including not only the basic salary, but also the monthly living allowance, the statutory
cost of living allowance, quarterly bonuses and daily meal allowance which is a fixed
amount regardless of place of assignment.
But the reimbursement for all transportation expenses incurred by the employee in
connection with her sales duties is not part of compensation.

B. Leonardo Marasigan started working for Madrid Development Corporation in August

1984 when it was being organized and had no fixed offices. The company did not ask for
his Social Security registration number, nor did it report him to the SSS. He died a year
later, and his widow filed a claim for death benefits with the Social Security System.
While following up the claim, the widow discovered that it was only in November 1985
when he was reported by his employer to the Social Security System and the premiums
covering the entire period from August 1984 were remitted.

Leonardos widow came to you for assistance. What would your legal advice be?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advise Leonardos widow that as the primary beneficiary, she is entitled to receive
the death benefits from the Social Security System.
Leonardo may have died in August 1985, and it was only in November 1985 when he
was reported by his employer to the System. But premiums covering the entire period
from August 1984 when remitted. Besides, according to the Social Security Act (in Sec.
24), the fact that the SSS has not previously received a report about an employee from his
employer or a contribution paid in his name by his employer, is not fatal to his rights to
benefits.
Leonardo had 12 monthly contributions in the 12 months that he was covered by the
System before he died. He, therefore, has not paid at least thirty six (36) monthly
contributions prior to the semester of death which under the Social Security Act (Sec. B)
would have entitled the widow as primary beneficiary, is entitled to a lump sum benefit
equivalent to thirty five times the monthly pension.

C. Gregorio Reposo, a 59-year old government employee and member of the Government
Insurance System could not wait for his retirement benefits and thought of enjoying them
in advance of his retirement at age 60 by borrowing 80% of the retirement benefits from a
friendly money lender, assigning to him the entire amount of his expected benefits. He
obtained the approval of the assignment from the GSIS.
Reposos spent the proceeds on a business venture that failed. A supplier sued Reposos for
unpaid materials and attempted to proceed against his retirement benefits.
Reposo seeks your assistance in an effort to shield his retirement benefits. What legal
advice would you give?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advise him that because he had assigned the entire amount of his expected benefits
to a money lender from whom he borrowed money representing 80% of his retirement
benefits, and had obtained the approval of the assignment from GSIS, said benefits are
now duly assigned to said lender.
The Revised Government Service Insurance Act (in Sec. 33) provides that the benefits
granted by the Act shall not be subject, among others, to attachment, garnishment, levy or

other processes. This, however, shall not apply to obligations of the member of the
System, or to the employer, or when the benefits granted herein are assigned by the
member with the authority of the System.
But as the above provision of the Act states, the retirement benefit is not subject to
attachment, garnishment, levy or other processes that the supplier may ask for.

1988

The facts in this problem will have a bearing on the solution of problem XV. Please keep
the essential facts in mind.
A. Pascual Pasacao was employed as a plumber by the Colossal Construction Corp. in
1965. He was then single. When he was registered with the SSS, he designated his
father Juan and his mother Maria, who were over 60 and dependent on him for support,
as his beneficiaries.
Colossal religiously remitted all employee and company
contributions required by the SSS law.
He married Damiana de Juan in 1967, and also declared her as beneficiary. Even
if he was married, and because he was making a lot of money on overtime, he continued
supporting his parents. A son, Pedrito, was born to the couple in 1968, and a daughter,
Marita, in 1970. He declared both to the SSS as his beneficiaries. In 1975, he was
promoted as foreman to a project in Mountain Province. He stayed there for 2 years and
during that time, he had a relationship with Juliana Abay, by whom he had a child,
Pascualito in 1976. He signed Pascualitos birth certificate.
Unknown to him, Damiana had an affair while he was away and bore a daughter,
Ariadne, in 1977. She represented to his employer that Ariadne was her child by Pascual
and the personnel clerk of the company reported the child to the SSS as another
beneficiary. When Pascual returned to Manila, he found out about Ariadne, and sent
Damiana away from the conjugal home with the child. She left and lived with Ariadnes
natural father. However, Pascual did not file legal separation proceedings against
Damiana.
Pascual did not know about the registration of Ariadne as an SSS beneficiary. He
then brought Juliana to his home in Manila with their child, Pascualito. She was mother
to all his children.

In 1979 the then Mistry of Labor issued regulations on Occupation Health and
Safety requiring construction workers to bear safety helmets imported from the United
States to all its workers, including foreman. These helmets were guaranteed to resist
impacts and absorb shocks for at least 5 years if constantly exposed to sunlight. Under
company rules, all workers on job sites must wear their safety helmets continuously.
Pascual, being macho, would put on his helmet only when executives of the company
were on the job site, or when labor inspectors would check compliance with labor rules.
In 1987, Pascual was supervising the raising of a pallet filled with PVC pipes to the 12th
floor of the building they were working on.
A Colossal project engineer was around so Pascual had put on his 8-year old
safety helmet. However, Pascual did not close the chin strap to secure the helmet to his
head. A cable snapped and whiplashed. It missed the engineer by inches and smashed
into Pascuals helmet. The helmet cracked but the cable did not touch Pascuals head.
However, because of the impact, Pascual lost his balance and fell to the ground. The
helmet flew off and he hit his head on the pavement. As a result of the injuries that he
sustained, he was paralyzed. While the attending physicians said that there was no hope
for his eventual recovery if he could follow a program of therapy, there was no certainty
when that would be. Since Pascual was a valued employee. The company wanted to do
all it could for him and his family.
You are counsel of the company. The President of the firm, who has briefed you
on th4e situation in Pascuals family, asks you to help the personnel clerk file a claim for
Pascuals benefits so it could augment the disability pay that the company was paying
him. In filling out the form, you find a blank for beneficiaries.
Whom should you write down as beneficiaries? Why?
To what benefits would Pascual be entitled? Explain your answer.
Under what conditions may the SSS suspend the grant of these benefits to Pascual?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disability suffered by Pascual is work-connected. Thus the applicable law
are the provisions in the Labor Code on employees compensation and the State Insurance
Fund. (Arts. 166-208). In one of these provisions (Art. 167[8]) beneficiaries mean the
dependent spouse until he/she remarries and dependent children, (legitimate. Legitimated,
or legally adopted or acknowledged child) who are primary beneficiaries. In their
absence, the dependent parents and subject to the restriction imposed on dependent

children, the illegitimate children and legitimate descendants, who are secondary
beneficiaries.
Applying the above definition, Damiana, the legal spouse of Pascual could have
been a primary beneficiary but since she is not living with Pascual, Damiana is not a
dependent spouse.
Pedrito and Marita are primary beneficiary as dependent children if they are not
yet over 21 years of age but they are unmarried and not gainfully employed.
Pascualito, the illegitimate son, is a secondary beneficiary.
beneficiaries are the dependent parents Juan and Maria.

Also secondary

He would be entitled to permanent total disability benefit in the form of employees

compensation. His paralysis of at least two limbs is considered permanent total disability
(Art. 192[3]), and it is employees compensation that will be given because the disability
is work-connected. It arose out of and in the course of employment. But he could not be
entitled to this benefit if he has been notoriously neglected. There could be basis for
notorious negligence. As a foreman he should be a model to his co-employee. He should
follow very well about wearing a helmet while at work.
The grant of permanent total disability may be suspended if Pascual is again gainfully
employed, or recovers from his permanent total disability or fails to present himself for
examination at least once a year upon notice by the SSS.

B.

If Pascual were covered by GSIS, who would be his dependents?

Who are Pascuals (a) Primary, and (b) secondary beneficiaries under PD No. 1146, the
Revised GSIS Act of 1977?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
His dependent would be the legitimate children (Pedrito and Marita) and the illegitimate
child (Pascualito) who are not yet 21 years of age, if they are unmarried, or not gainfully
employed, and the legitimate parents (Juan and Maria) who are wholly dependent upon
Pascual for support.
Damiana, the legal spouse is not dependent because she is not living with Pascual

and could therefore be considered as not dependent for support on Pascual.

(b) The primary and secondary beneficiaries of Pascual, if he is covered by GSIS,
except that Pascualito, the illegitimate child, will be a primary beneficiary and not just
secondary beneficiary.

1989

Sapatilya Company, a manufacturer of wooden shoes, started its operations on January 1,

1989. As of June 15, 1989, the company had in its payroll a general manager, an assistant
general manager, three supervisors and forty rank and file employees, all of whom started
with the company on January 1, 1989. On July 1, 1989, the company also had ten casual
employees who had been with the company since February 16, 19089 and twelve
contractual employees whose contracts of employment with the company is for the period
from August 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989. Who among the aforementioned employees
are under coverage of the Social Security Law? When did their coverage under the said
law take effect?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All of the foregoing employees are covered by the Social Security Law, except the ten
(10) purely casual employees. The coverage of the Social Security System is very
comprehensive; it covers all employees not over sixty years of age except, among
others those whose employment is purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation
or business of the employer. But the casual employees in the question may not even be
casual under the Social Security Law because they have been with the company since
February 16, 1989. How could they be with the company that long if their employment is
not for the purpose of occupation or business of the employer? The coverage of the Social
Security Law takes effect on the day of the employment of the employee.

1990
1991
1992

1993
1994
1995
A. Big Foot Company of Paete, Laguna, has been in the business of manufacturing
wooden sandals for export since 5 November 1980. On 5 January 1994 it employed an
additional labor complement of thirty workers, two supervisors and two department
managers. On 5 February 1994 it hired five carpenters to fix the roof and walls of its
factory which were destroyed by typhoon "Huaning." Who among the aforementioned
persons are compulsorily covered by the Social Security Law and when should they be
considered effectively covered? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that all of them were not yet over sixty years of age, the additional labor
complement of thirty workers, two supervisors and two department managers were
compulsorily covered by the Social Security Law on 5 January 1994, when they were
employed. According to said law, workers are covered on the day of their employment.
But the five carpenters which the company hired to fix the roof and walls of its factory
were not under the compulsory coverage of the Social Security Law because said
carpenters are casual employees. The Social Security Law provides that employment
purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or the business of the employer are
not under its compulsory coverage.

B. Is it necessary for an employee to litigate in order to establish and enforce his right to
compensation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. All that an employee does to claim employee's compensation is to file a claim for
said benefits with the SSS (for those in the private sector) or GSIS (for those in the public
sector).
In the event that the claim is denied on the SSS/GSIS level, claimant may appeal to the
Employees Compensation Commission where he may prove the causal connection
between injury and nature of work.

1996
1997

State the respective coverages of {a} the Social Security Law: (b) the Revised
government Service Insurance Act and (c) the Employees Compensation Act.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Coverage of SSS (Sec. 9. RA 8282) shall be compulsory upon all employees not
over sixty years of age and their employers. Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by
foreignbased employers for employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a
voluntary basis. Coverage in the SSS shall also be compulsory upon all self-employed
persons earning P1,800 or more per annum.
(b) Membership in the Government Service Insurance System (Art. 3, RA8291) shall
be compulsory for all permanent employees below 60 years of age upon appointment to
permanent status, and for all elective officials for the duration of their tenure. Any
person, whether elected or appointed, in the service of an employer is a covered
employee if he receives compensation for such service.
(c) Coverage in the State Insurance Fund (Art, 168, Labor Code) shall be compulsory
upon all employers and their employees not over sixty (60) years of age; Provided,
that an employee who is over (60) years of age and paying contributions to qualify for
the retirement or life insurance benefit administered by the System shall be subject to
compulsory coverage. The Employees Compensation Commission shall ensure adequate
coverage of Filipino employees employed abroad, subject to regulations as it may
prescribe. (Art, 170} Any person compulsorily covered by the GSIS including the
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and any person employed as casual,
emergency, temporary, substitute or contractual, or any person compulsorily covered by
the SSS are covered by the Employees Compensation Program.

1998

1999

Marvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying services for the members and guests of
the Barili Golf & Country Club. As such caddy, he is subject to Barili golfs rules and
regulations governing Caddies regarding conduct, dress, language, etc. However, he does
not have to observe any working hours, he is free to leave anytime he pleases; and he can
stay away for as long as he likes. Nonetheless, if he is found remiss in the observance of
club rules, he can be disciplined by being barred from the premises of Barili Golf.
Is Marvin within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Because he is not an employee of the Barili Golf & Country Club, Marvin is not within
the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System. Marvin is not an employee of the
club because under the specific circumstances of his relations with the club, he is not
under the orders of the club as regards employment which would have made him an
employee of the club. (See Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. IAC, 237 SCRA 207)
But Marvin is within the compulsory coverage of the SSS as a self-employed person.
(See Section 9-A, Social Security Law of 1957)

2000
The Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Golden Corporation Inc. and the Golden
Corporation Workers Union provides a package of welfare benefits far superior in
comparison with those provided for in the Social Security Act of 1997. The welfare plan
of the company is funded solely by the employer with no contributions from the
employees. Admittedly, it is the best welfare plan in the Philippines. The company and
the union jointly filed a petition with the Social Security System for exemption from
coverage. Will the petition for exemption from coverage prosper? Reason. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because coverage under the SSS is compulsory where employer-employee relations
exist. However, if the private plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may be
integrated with the SSS plan. Still, it is integration and not exemption from SSS law.
(Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. v. Social Security System, 17 SCRA 107(1966);
RA. No. 1161 as amended by RA No. 8282}.

2001
In 1960, Juan hired Pablo to drive for the former's lumber company. In 1970, Pablo got
sick and was temporarily laid-off. In 1972, Pablo recovered and resumed working for the
same lumber company, now run by Juan's wife since Juan had already passed away. In
1996, Pablo retired. When Pablo applied for retirement benefits with the SSS that same
year, he discovered that the lumber company never enrolled him as an employee, much
less remitted his contributions that were deducted from his salary. The lumber company
agreed to pay for Pablo's contributions plus penalties but maintained that most of Pablo's
claims had already prescribed under Art, 1150 of the Civil Code. (Art. 1150 provides
"The time for prescription of all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision
which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought."). Is the
Lumber Companys contention correct? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The lumber company's contention is not correct. The Social Security Law (in Sec. 22(b)
provides that the right to institute the necessary action against an employer may be
commenced within twenty (20) years from the time the delinquency is known or the
assessment is made by the SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the case may be.

2002
The owners of FALCON Factory, a company engaged in the assembling of automotive
components, decided to have their building renovated. Fifty (50) persons, composed of
engineers, architects and other construction workers, were hired by the company for this
purpose. The work was estimated to be completed in three (3) years. The employees
contended that since the work would be completed after more than one (1) year, they
should be subject to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Law. Do you agree
with their contention? Explain your answer fully. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Under Section 8 (j) of RA 1161, as amended, employment of purely casual and not
for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer are excepted from
compulsory coverage. An employment is purely casual if it is not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employer. In the problem given, Falcon Factory is a
company engaged in the assembling of automotive components. The fifty (50) persons
(engineers, architects and construction workers) were hired by Falcon Factory to renovate
its building. The work to be performed by these fifty (60) people is not in connection
with the purpose of the business of the factory. Hence, the employ of these fifty (50)
persons is purely casual. They are, therefore, excepted from the compulsory coverage of
the SSS law.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I agree with the contention that the employees hired by the owners of FALCON factory
as construction workers in the renovation of its building should be under the compulsory
coverage of the Social Security Law. It is true that in connection with FALCON Factory,
which is engaged in the assembling of automotive components, the construction workers
may be considered casual employees because their employment is not for the purpose of
occupation of business of FALCON Factory. As such, in accordance with Section 8{j) of
the Social Security Law, they are excepted form the compulsory coverage of the Social
Security System. But they could also be considered project employees of FALCON
Factory and as such could be under the compulsory coverage of the SSS, applying Art 4
of the Labor Code that provides that all doubts in the Implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of Labor Law shall be resolved in favor of labor. The employees here
therefore, should be considered as under the compulsory coverage of the SSS.

2003
Pablo was a farm-hand in a plantation owned by ABC & Co., working approximately 6
days a week for a good 15 years. Upon Pablo's death, his widow filed a claim for burial
grant and pension benefits with the Social Security System (SSS).
The claim was denied on the ground that Pablo had not been a registered memberemployee. Pablo's widow filed a petition before the SSS asking that ABC & Co. be
directed to pay the premium contributions of Pablo and that his name be reported for SSS
coverage. ABC & Co. countered that Pablo was hired to plow, harrow and burrow, using
his own carabao and other implements and following his own schedule of work hours,
without any supervision from the company. If proven, would this factual setting advanced
by ABC & Co. be a valid defense against the petition?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABC & Co. has a valid defense. Pablo should be an employee of ABC & Co. to be under
the compulsory coverage of the SSS. To be an employee, Pablo should be under the
control of ABC & Co. as regards his employment. But the facts show that he was not
under the control of ABC & Co. as regards his employment. Among others, he had his
own schedule of work hours, without any supervision from the company. Thus, he is an
independent contractor and not an employee. An independent contractor is not under the
compulsory coverage of the SSS. He maybe covered as a self-employed person. But then
as such, ABC & Co. has no legal obligation to report Pablo for coverage under the SSS
because ABC & Co. is not Pablo's employer.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is not a valid defense, for Pablo could be considered an employee of ABC & Co. The
elements of hiring, payment of wages, power to dismiss and power to control are
presumed from the fact that Pablo is working 6 days a week, for 15 years now. Pablo's
use of his plow, harrow, burrow, carabao and other implements and his having his own
schedule of work hours without any supervision from the company do not erase the
element of control on the part of ABC & Co. because under the "control test", it is
enough that the employer's right to control exists. It is not necessary that the same be
exercised by the employer, it is enough that such right to control exists. (Religious of the
Virgin Mary v. NLRC. 316 SCRA 614, 629 (1999)

2004
Atty. CLM, a dedicated and efficient public official, was the top executive of a
government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). While inspecting an ongoing
project in a remote village in Mindanao, she suffered a stroke and since then had been
confined to a wheelchair. At the time she stopped working because of her illness in line of
duty, Atty. CLM was only sixty years old but she had been an active member of the GSIS
for thirty years without any break in her service record. What benefits could she claim
from the GSIS? Cite at least five benefits. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The benefits Atty. CLM could claim from the GSIS are:
(1) Employees compensation which shall include both income and medical and related

benefits, including rehabilitation;

(2) Temporary total disability benefit;
(3) Permanent total disability benefit;
(4) Separation benefit; and
(5) Retirement benefit.

2005

How are the "portability" provisions of Republic Act No. 7699 beneficial or
advantageous to SSS and GSIS members in terms of their creditable employment services
in the private sector or the government, as the case may be, for purposes of death,
disability or retirement? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Portability provisions of R.A. No. 7699 shall benefit a covered worker who transfers
employment from one sector to another or is employed in both sectors, whose creditable
services or contributions in both systems credited to his service or contribution record in
each of the system and shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability, survivorship
and other benefits. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7699)
The "portability" provisions of R.A. No. 7699 allow the transfer of funds for the account
and benefit of the worker who transfers from one system to another.
This is advantageous to the SSS and GSIS members for purposes of death, disability or
retirement benefits. In the event the employees transfer from the private sector to the
public sector, or vice-versa, their creditable employment services and contributions are
carried over and transferred as well.

2006
2007
AB, single and living-in with CD (a married man), is pregnant with her fifth child. She
applied for maternity leave but her employer refused the application because she is not
married. Who is right? Decide. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AB is right. The Social Security Law, which administers the Maternity Benefit Program
does not require that the relationship between the father and the mother of the child be
legitimate. The law is compensating the female worker because of her maternal function
and resultant loss of compensation. The law is morality free.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Neither party is correct. The employer cannot refuse the application on the ground that
she is only living with CD, as legitimate marriage is not a precondition for the grant of
maternity leave. Neither AB is correct, since maternity leave is only available for the first
four deliveries or miscarriage.

2008

A. Tito Paciencioso is an employee of a foundry shop in Malabon, Metro Manila. He is

barely able to make ends meet with his salary of P4,000.00 a month. One day, he asked
his employer to stop deducting from his salary his SSS monthly contribution, reasoning
out that he is waiving his social security coverage. If you were Tito's employer, would
you grant his request? Why? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, payment of SSS monthly contribution is compulsory and cannot be waived. To grant
Titos request will violate the SSS law and expose me to the risk of punishment of fine or
imprisonment or both at the discretion of the Court (Sec. 9, Social Security Act, R.A.
8282).

B. Carol de la Cruz is the secretary of the proprietor of an auto dealership in quezon City.
She resides in Caloocan City. Her office hours start at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On July
30, 2008, at 7 a.m. while waiting for public transport at Rizal Avenue Extension as has
been her routine, she was sideswiped by a speeding taxicab resulting in her death. The
father of Carol filed a claim for employee's compensation with the Social Security
System. Will the claim prosper? Why? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, under the Going-To-And-ComingFrom-Rule, the injuries (or death, as in this
case) sustained by an employee going to and coming from his place of work are
compensable (Bael v. Workmens Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-42255,
January 31, 1977).
C. Assume that in Problem 5, Mario, an RSC member disgusted with the non-payment of
his night shift differential and overtime pay, filed a complaint with the DOLE Regional
Office against RSC and PizCorp. After inspection, it was found that indeed Mario was
not getting his correct differential and overtime pay and that he was declared an SSS
member (so that no premiums for SSS membership were ever remitted). On this basis, the
Regional Director issued a compliance order holding PizCorp and RSC solidarily liable
for the payment of the correct differential and overtime pay and ordering PizCorp to
report Mario for membership with SSS and remit overdue SSS premiums. Who has the
obligation to report the RSC members for membership with the SSS, with the
concomitant obligation to remit SSS premiums? Why? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since RSC is a labor-Only contractor and, therefore, considered a mere agent of
PizCorp. PizCorp, as the real employer, has the legal obligation to report the RSC
members as its employees for membership with the SSS and remit its premium.

2009
Can a member of a cooperative be deemed an employee for purposes of compulsary
coverage under the sss act? Explain (2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an employee of a cooperative not over 60 years of age, under the sss law, subject to
compulsary coverage. The section 8(d) SSS law defines an employee as
Sec 8 (d) any person who performs services for an employer in which either or
both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for
such service where there is an employee-employer relationship

2010
A, single, has been an active member of the Social Security System for the past 20
months. She became pregnant out of wedlock and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she
was informed that she would have to deliver the baby through caesarean section because
of some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes, how many days can she
go on maternity leave? If not, why is she not entitled? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the SSS Law does not discriminate based on the civil status of a female memberemployee. As long as said female employee has paid at least three (3) monthly
contributions in the twelve- month period immediately preceding the semester of her
childbirth, she can avail of the maternity benefits under the law.
Since A gave birth through C-section, she is entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of
her average salary credit for seventy-eight (78) days, provided she notifies her employer
of her pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth,
among others (See Section 14-A, Rep. Act No. 8282).
The same maternity benefits are ensured by Sec. 22 (b)(2) of the magna Carta of Women
(Rep. Act No. 9710).

2011
Under the Limited Portability law, funds from the GSIS and the SSS maybe transferred
for the benefit of a worker who transfers from one system to the other. For this purpose,
overlapping periods of membership shall be
(A) credited only once. (Answer)
(B) credited in full.
(C) proportionately reduced.
(D) equally divided for the purpose of totalization.

2012
A. Jennifer, a receptionist at Company X, is covered by the SSS. She was pregnant with

her fourth child when she slipped in the bathroom of her home and had a miscarriage.
Meanwhile, Company X neglected to remit the required contributions to the SSS.
Jennifer claims maternity leave benefits and sickness benefits. Which of these two may
she claim?
a.a.

None of them;

a.b.

Either one of them;

a.c.

Only maternity leave benefits;

a.d.

Only sickness benefits.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Only maternity leave benefits [Sec. 14-A (c), RA 1161 (SSS Law) as amended by RA
8282]

B. Which of the following statements is the most accurate?

a.e.
Domestic helpers with monthly income of at least P3,000.00 are
compulsory members of the SSS Law;
a.f.House helpers with monthly income of at least P2,000.00 are compulsory
members of the SSS Law;
b.

Domestic helpers, 55 years of age and who worked for at least five (5)
years, are covered by the Retirement Pay Law under optional retirement,
in the absence of a CBA;

b.a.
Domestic helpers in the personal service of another are not entitled
to 13th month pay.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Domestic helpers in the personnel service of another are not entitled to 13th month
pay.

2013
Because of the stress in caring for her four (4) growing children, Tammy suffered a
miscarriage late in her pregnancy and had to undergo an operation. In the course of the
operation, her obstetrician further discovered a suspicious-looking mass that required the
subsequent removal of her uterus (hysterectomy). After surgery, her physician advised
Tammy to be on full bed rest for six (6) weeks. Meanwhile, the biopsy of the sample
tissue taken from the mass in Tammy's uterus showed a beginning malignancy that
required an immediate series of chemotherapy once a week for four (4) weeks. What
benefits can Tammy claim under existing social legislation? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming she is employed, Tammy is entitled to a special leave benefit of two moths
with full pay (Gynecological Leave) pursuant to R.A. No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of
Women. She can also claim Sickness Leave benefit in accordance with the SSS Law.

2014
A. Don Luis, a widower, lived alone in a house with a large garden. One day, he noticed
that the plants in his garden needed trimming. He remembered that Lando, a 17-year old
out-of-school youth, had contacted him in church the other day looking for work. He
contacted Lando who immediately attended to Don Luiss garden and finished the job in
three days. (4%)
(A) Is there an employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando?
(B) Does Don Luis need to register Lando with the Social Security System (SSS)?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) There is employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando. Firstly,
Lando who was looking for work finally rendered personal services for Don Luis.
Secondly, Lando could not have been the master of his time, means and methods under
the circumstances (Sec. 8, RA 8282).
(B) Don Luis does not need to register Lando with the SSS because he is a purely casual
employee, hence outside SSS coverage (RA 8282). Neither should he report Lando for
SSS coverage under the Kasambahay Act because, although a gardener, he is an
occasional if not sporadic employee. Therefore,
he is not a kasambahay who is entitled to SSS coverage (RA 10361).
Comment:

The question is tricky. The examiner wants to lead the examinees into considering Lando
as a kasambahay because he is listed ( gardener), and giving him SSS coverage pursuant
to RA 10361. However, Lando is an occasional or sporadic gardener; hence, he is not a
kasambahay.

B. Luisito has been working with Lima Land for 20 years. Wanting to work in the public
sector, Luisito applied with and was offered a job at Livecor. Before accepting the offer,
he wanted to consult you whether the payments that he and Lima Land had made to the
Social Security System (SSS) can be transferred or credited to the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS). What would you advice? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would tell Luisito that, under the Limited Portability Law, he will carry with him his
creditable service and paid contributions as he moves from one system to the other.
Hence, he may accept the job offer without fearing that he would lose his years of service
in the private sector. Actually, they can be
totalized with his years of service in the public sector in the event that he would not be
able to qualify for benefits due solely to insufficiency of creditable service.

2015
A. Ador is a student working on his master's degree in horticulture. To make ends meet,
he takes on jobs to come up with flower arrangements for friends. His neighbor, Nico, is
about to get married to Lucia and needs a floral arranger. Ador offers his services and
Nico agrees. They shake hands on it, agreeing that Nico will pay Ador :P20,000.00 for his
services but that Ador will take care of everything. As Ador sets about to decorate the
venue, Nico changes all of Ador's plans and ends up designing the arrangements himself
with Ador simply executing Nico's instructions.
Is there an employer-employee relationship between Nico and Ador? (2015 Bar
Question)
(b)
Will Nico need to register Ador with the Social Security System (SSS)? (2015 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. With Adors simply executing Nicos instruction, Nico, who now has control over
Adors work, has become the employer of Ador. In Royale Homes Marketing Corp. v.
Fidel Alcantara (G.R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014) the Supreme Court held that control is
the most important determinant of employer-employee relationship.
Yes, as under Section 9 of the Social Security Law (Art. 1161 as amended), coverage in
the SSS shall be compulsory upon all employees not over sixty (60) years of age and their
employers.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b)
If Ador is a purely casual employee:
No. Casual employees are not subject to the compulsory coverage of the SSS by
express provision of law. (Section 8(5) (3), RA 1161, as amended)
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
There is no employer-employee relationship. The case at hand pertains to a civil law
arrangement. There is no business undertaken by Lucia; what the parties have is a
contract for a specific service.

B. Luisa is an unwed mother with 3 children from different fathers. In 2004, she became
a member of the Social Security System (SSS). That same year, she suffered a
miscarriage of a baby out of wedlock from the father of her third child. She wants to
claim maternity benefits under the SSS Act. Is she entitled to claim? (2015 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes.
Provided Luisa has reported to her employer her pregnancy and date of expected
delivery and paid at least three monthly contributions during the 12-month period
immediately preceding her miscarriage then she is entitled to maternity benefits up to
four deliveries. As to the fact that she got pregnant outside wedlock, as in her past three
pregnancies, this will not bar her claim because the SSS is non-discriminatory.