ELENA P. DYCAICO, Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No.

161357,
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1997 30 November 2005
Republic Act No. 1161 petitioner, vs. FACTS:
(As Amended by Republic Act Nos 1792, 2658, 3839,
4482, 4857, Presidential Decree Nos. 24, 177, 347, 735,
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM Bonifacio Dycaico was a member of
1202, 1636, Executive Order Nos. 28, 102, and SOCIAL SECURITY the SSS, with his common-law wife Elena
Republic Act Nos. 7322 and 8282) and their eight children named in his data
Case Digest / Briefs | 1 July 2017 | SOCLEG020
COMMISSION, respondents record as beneficiaries. In 1989, Bonifacio
G.R. No. 161357. November was considered retired and began
Udani Cabigon Jara Destriza Villarias Billones receiving his monthly pension from the
Convite Talatala
Balgos Saragoza Rosales
Villaflor 30, 2005. En Banc SSS. He married Elena on the same year

Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357, Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357, Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357,

that he passed away. Shortly after married the time of his retirement. ISSUE:
death, Elena filed with the SSS Elena brought her case to the Social Whether or not the proviso of the
an application for pension. Security Commission, which still denied date of his in Section 12-B(d)
However, the same was denied on the her claim. of RA 8282 violates the equal protection
ground that under Section 12-B(d) of RA and due process clauses of the
8282 (Social Security Law), she could not Constitution.
be considered primary
beneficiary became they were not

Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357, Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357, Dycaico v. SSS; G.R. No. 161357,

RULING:
The proviso violates the due process
clause as it outrightly deprives the
surviving spouses whose respective
marriages to the retired SSS members
were contracted after the
retirement of their benefits.
There is outright confiscation of benefits
due such surviving spouses without
giving them an opportunity to be heard.
The proviso creates the presumption that
marriages contracted after the
retirement date were entered into for the
purpose of securing benefits under R.A.
8282. This presumption is conclusive
because the said surviving spouses are
not afforded any opportunity to disprove
the presence of the illicit purpose, thereby
also depriving them the opportunity to
be heard.
 SSS v. CA and QTC; No. L-46058, SSS v. CA and QTC; No. L-46058,
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, 14 December 1987
petitioner, vs. FACTS: January 21, 1976 SSS resolved in favor
August 12, 1972 QTC entered into a
COURT OF APPEALS and Vendor-Vendee agreement with Romeo of Carreon
Quality Tobacco Corp., Carreon. March 16, 1977 CA reversed SSS
December 18, 1973 contract was resolution.
respondents terminated.
March 25, 1977 SSS filed an MR
L-46058. December 14, 1987. April 29, 1974 Carreon filed a petition
with SSS alleging he is an employee of April 14, 1977 CA denied the MR
QTC.

SSS v. CA and QTC; No. L-46058, SSS v. CA and QTC; No. L-46058, SSS v. CA and QTC; No. L-46058,

ISSUE: RULING: - whether the employer

Whether or not, Carreon is an employee
or independent contractor of QTC.
Carreon is an employee of QTC as there
exists an employer-employee relationship
between them.
QTC exercised control and supervision
over the work of Carreon.
controls or has reserved the right to
control the employee not only as to the
result of the work to be done but also as
to the means and method by which the
same is to be accomplished.

Garcia v. Social Security Garcia v. Social Security

IMMACULADA L. GARCIA, Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007) Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007)
Petitioner, SOCIAL Facts: Records show that around 1978,
Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia, Impact Corporation started encountering
SECURITY COMMISSION Eduardo de Leon, Ricardo de Leon, Pacita financial problems. By 1980, labor
LEGAL AND COLLECTION, Fernandez, and Consuelo Villanueva were enclosed the corporation.
directors of Impact Corporation. The Ministry of Labor, noted the
SOCIAL SECURITY The corporation was engaged in the inability of Impact Corporation to pay
SYSTEM business of manufacturing aluminum wages, 13th month pay, and SSS
remittances due to cash liquidity
tube containers and operated two
Respondents. factories. problems. A portion of the order reads:
Garcia v. Social Security
Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007)
On the claims of unpaid wages,
unpaid 13th month pay and non-
remittance of loan amortization and SSS
premiums, we are for directing the
company to pay the same to the workers
and to remit loan amortizations and SSS
premiums previously deducted from their
wages to the Social Security System.
Garcia v. Social Security
Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007)
omission pertaining to the violation of
the Social Security Law, to wit: (f) If the
act or omission penalized by this Act be
committed by an association, partnership,
corporation or any other institution, its
managing head, directors or partners
shall be liable to the penalties provided in
this Act for the offense.
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
Sometime later, the cooperative
owners-members requested
help in registering them with SSS and
remitting their contributions.
Petitioner SSS informed Asiapro that
being actually a manpower contractor
supplying employees to Stanfilco, it must
be the one to register itself with SSS as an
Garcia v. Social Security
Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007)
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner, as the only
surviving director of Impact Corporation,
can be made solely liable for the
corporate obligations of Impact
Corporation pertaining to unremitted SSS
premium contributions and penalties
therefore.
Republic of the Philippines
represented by the Social
Security System v. Asiapro
Cooperative
G.R. No. 172101
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
employer and remit the contributions.
Respondent continuously ignoring the
demand of SSS the latter filed before the
SSC. Asiapro alleges that there exists no
employer-employee relationship between
it and its owners-members. SSC ruled in
favor of SSS. On appeal, CA reversed the
decision.
Garcia v. Social Security
Commission; G.R. No. 170735 (2007)
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia,
as sole surviving director of Impact
Corporation is hereby ORDERED to pay
for the collected and unremitted SSS
contributions of Impact Corporation.
Section 28(f) of the Social Security
Law imposes a civil liability for any act or
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
Facts:
Respondent Asiapro Cooperative is
composed of owners-members with
primary objectives of providing them
savings and credit facilities and livelihood
services. In discharge of said objectives,
Asiapro entered into several service
contracts with Stanfilco.
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
Issue:
Whether or not there is employer-
employee relationship between Asiapro
and its owners-members.
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
Ruling:
YES.
In determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, the
following elements are considered: (1) the
selection and engagement of the workers;
(2) the payment of wages by whatever
means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
as compensation in rendering services to
respondent client, Stanfilco.
Third. It is also stated in the above-
mentioned Service Contracts that 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.
BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME,
petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM and SCANMER
MARITIME SERVICES, INC.,
respondents.
G.R. No. 192531. November 12,
2014.
THIRD DIVISION
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
the power to control the
conduct, with the latter assuming primacy
in the overall consideration. All the
aforesaid elements are present in this
case.
First. It is expressly provided in the
Service Contracts that it is the respondent
cooperative which has the exclusive
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
Fourth. In the case at bar, 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. Also,
the respondent cooperative is solely and
entirely responsible for its owners-
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
14 November 2014
Ponente: VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
John Colcol, the biological son of the
petitioner Bernardita P. Bartolome died in
an accident when the steel plates fell on
him while he is onboard in a vessel.
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
discretion in the selection and
engagement of the owners-members as
well as its team leaders who will be
assigned at Stanfilco.
Second. It cannot be doubted then
that those stipends or shares in the
service surplus are indeed wages, because
these are given to the owners-members.
Republic v. Asiapro; G.R. No. 172101
members, team leaders and other
representatives at Stanfilco. All these
clearly prove that, indeed, there is an
employer-employee relationship between
the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members.
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
The petitioner, allegedly, sole
remaining beneficiary, filed a claim for
death benefits under PD 626 with the
Social Security System.
However, the SSS La Union Office
informed the petitioner that she is no
longer entitled for the death benefits of
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
John Colcol since he was legally adopted
by Cornelio Colcol.
The denial was appealed to the
Compensation Commission
(ECC) but they affirmed the ruling of the
SSS.
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
benefits stemming from death as a
dependent parent giving to
untimely demise during minority.
Since the parent by adoption already
died, the death benefits under the
Compensation Program shall
accrue solely to herein petitioner,
sole remaining beneficiary.
Ortega v. SSS; G.R. No. 176150; 25
Ortega then applied for total
permanent disability benefits but such
application was denied by the SSS. SSS
observed that Ibarra was already granted
benefits under the same illness.
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, which was likewise
denied by the ECC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the biological mother
of John Colcol can claim his death
IBARRA P. ORTEGA
vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
G.R. No. 176150
June 25, 2008
Ortega v. SSS; G.R. No. 176150; 25
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ortega can claim
under the Social Security Law for work
connected disability claims
Bartolome v. SSS; G.R. No. 192531;
benefits as a secondary beneficiary even
though he was legally adopted.
RULING:
The decision of the of the ECC is
bereft of legal basis. adoption
of John, without more, does not deprive
petitioner of the right to receive the
Ortega v. SSS; G.R. No. 176150; 25
June 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner Ibarra Ortega, member of
respondent Social Security System (SSS)
filed claims for partial permanent
disability benefits on account of his illness
with SSS, which the latter granted for a
total of 23 months.
Ortega v. SSS; G.R. No. 176150; 25
RULING:
Initial physical examination and
interview revealed that Ibarra had slight
limitation of grasping movement for both
hands. This finding was not enough to
grant an extension benefit since Ortega
has already received benefits equivalent
to 30% of the body.

MARIA BUENA OBRA,
petitioner vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
(Jollar Industrial Sales and
services Inc), respondent
G.R No. 147745, April 9, 2003
Obra v. SSS; G.R. No. 147745,
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the claim of the
petitioner has prescribed.
2. Whether or not the illness of
petitioner's husband is work-related.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 100388,
December 14, 2000
Obra v. SSS; G.R. No. 147745,
9 April 2003
FACTS:
Juanito Obra was the husband of the
petitioner who was the dump truck driver
of Jollar Industrial Sales and Services from
January 1980 to June 1988.
Obra v. SSS; G.R. No. 147745,
RULING:
Yes, the petitioner can claim the
Employee benefit of her husband.
Claim should be filed with the System
within three years from the time the
cause of action accrued.
SSS v. CA; G.R. No. 100388,
14 December 2000
FACTS:
Margarita Tana, alleged that Conchita
Ayalde, employer of her late husband
Ignacio Tana Sr., did not remit the
contributions to SSS even though there
were deductions from his wages.
The SSS, revealed that neither Ayalde
was registered members-employers of the
Obra v. SSS; G.R. No. 147745,
After her husband died, petitioner
immediately filed her claim for death
benefits under the SSS Law. Petitioner
however unaware of the other
compensation benefits due to her under
P.D No. 626, or the Law on Employees
Compensation, she just discover it after 10
years after the death of her husband.
Obra v. SSS; G.R. No. 147745,
In the second issue it likewise in favor of
the petitioner. Under the law, death is
compensable when it result from work-
connected injury or accident.
SSS v. CA; G.R. No. 100388,
14 December 2000
SSS, and consequently, Ignacio Tana, Sr.,
was never registered as a members-
employee; thus, there was no way of
verifying the remittance of Tana. For the
part of Ayalde, she alleged that Tana was
an independent contractor and paid on
basis.
SSS v. CA; G.R. No. 100388,
14 December 2000
ISSUE:
Whether or not an agricultural laborer
who was hired on basis can be
considered an employee entitled to
compulsory coverage and corresponding
benefits under the Social Security Law.
SSS v. COA; G.R. 149240, 11 July
2002
FACTS:
The Commission on Audit disallowed
the P5,000 signing bonus for each
employees and officers of the Social
Security System being illegal.
SSS v. COA; G.R. 149240,
employees and officers. This means that
whatever salaries and other financial and
non-financial inducements that the SSC
was minded to fix for them, the
compensation must comply with the
terms of RA 6758.
The signing bonus therefore could not
have been included in the salutary
SSS v. CA; G.R. No. 100388,
14 December 2000
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the
relationship between Ayalde and Tana has
more of the attributes of employer-
employee than that of an independent
contractor hired to perform a specific
project. Hence, Tana should be entitled to
compulsory coverage under Social
Security Law.
SSS v. COA; G.R. 149240,
ISSUE:
Whether or not the charter of SSS
authorizes SSC to fix the compensation of
its officers and employees.
SSS v. COA; G.R. 149240,
provisions of the statute nor would it be
legal to disburse to the intended
recipients.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 149240 July 11, 2002
SSS v. COA; G.R. 149240,
RULING:
No, the charter of SSS do not
authorize SSC to fix the compensation of
its officers and employees.
RA 6758 modified, if not repealed,
Sec. 3, par. (c), of RA 1161 as amended, at
least insofar as it concerned the authority
of SSC to fix the compensation of SSS
SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION AND SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM,
petitioner, vs. TERESA G.
FAVILA, respondent
[ G.R.No. 170195, March 28,
2011 ]
SSC and SSS v. Favila; G.R. 170195
28 March 2011
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.:
FACTS:
When husband died , his
pension benefits under the SSS were
given to their only minor child at that
time. Teresa subsequently filed her claim
for said benefits before the SSS as the
surviving legal wife.
SSC and SSS v. Favila; G.R. 170195
Respondent Teresa G. Favila is
declared to be not a dependent spouse
within the contemplation of Republic Act
No. 1161 and is therefore not entitled to
death benefits accruing from the death of
Florante Favila.
Spouses Cruz filed an action for
damages against SSS before RTC in Rizal.
SSS invoking its immunity from suit being
an agency of the government performing
government function. The trial court and
court of appeal nevertheless awarded
damages in favor of spouses Cruz.
SSC and SSS v. Favila; G.R. 170195
ISSUE:
Is Teresa a primary beneficiary in
contemplation of the Social Security Law
as to be entitled to death benefits
accruing from the death of Florante?
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
respondents
(120 SCRA 707)
ISSUE:
Whether or not SSS is immune from
suit.
RULING:
No. The SSS has a distinct legal
personality and it can be sued for
damages. The SSS does not enjoy
SSC and SSS v. Favila; G.R. 170195
RULING:
It is plain that for a spouse to qualify
as a primary beneficiary under paragraph
(k) thereof, he/she must not only be a
legitimate spouse but also a dependent
as defined under paragraph (e), that is,
one who is dependent upon the member
for support.
SSS v. CA (120 SCRA 707)
FACTS:
Spouses David and Socorro Cruz,
applied and granted a real estate loan by
the SSS with residential lot located at
Pateros, Rizal as collateral. When default
in payment SSS filed a petition for
foreclosure of their real estate mortgage.
immunity from suit by express statutory
consent. It has corporate power separate
and distinct from the government. So that
even assuming that the SSS, as it claims,
enjoys immunity from suit as an entity
performing governmental function by
virtue of the explicit provision of the

afore cited enabling law, the government
must be deemed to have waived
immunity in respect of the SSS. The SSS
thereby has been required to submit to
the jurisdiction of the court; subject to its
right to interpose any lawful defense.
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS; No.
L-
The Unions of the workers and later on
Lustevco requested the Social Security
Commision (SSC) that the workers be
exempted from compulsory coverage as
they were working intermittently. Both
requests were denied by the SSC and
ordered Lustevco to pay all back premiums.
SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION vs.
EDNA A. AZOTE,
G.R. No. 209741. April 15,
2015
LUZON STEVEDORING CORP.,
petitioner vs. SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM,
respondent
No. L-20088
22 January 1966
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS; No.
L-
ISSUE:
Whether or not temporary workers and
casual employees are covered by the Social
security act (amended by RA2658)?
SSC v. Azote; G.R. No. 209741,
15 April 2015
FACTS:
Respondent Edna Azote and Edgardo
Azote, a member of SSS, were married in
1992. In 1994, Edgardo submitted his SSS
Form E-4 with his wife Edna and their
children as beneficiaries. In 2005, Edgardo
died and Edna tried to claim the benefit
but was denied because it appears in the
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS;
No. L-20088, 22 January 1966
FACTS:
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. ( Lustevco) was a
company doing business in Manila, Iloilo
and Bacolod. The company employed
temporary workers with average number
of working days per year ranging from 14
to 36.
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS; No.
L-
RULING:
Temporary and casual employees are
within the ambit of the Social Security Act.
All employees are exposed to the hazards of
disability, sickness, old age and death. Social
justice demands that who have less in
life should be given more in .
SSC v. Azote; G.R. No. 209741,
record that Edgardo had another set of
SSS Form E-4 in 1982 where his former
wife Rosemarie and their child were
designated as beneficiaries.
The SSC dismissed the petition filed
by Edna because the SSS Form E-4
designating Rosemarie and her child were
not revoked by Edgardo.
SSC v. Azote; G.R. No. 209741,
ISSUE:
Whether or not, Edna is entitled to the
SSS benefits as the wife of a deceased
member.
RULING:
No. Applying RA 8282 Section 8(e)
and (k) thereof, only the legal spouse of
the deceased-member is qualified to be
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 200114, August 24,
2015
SSC v. Ubana; G.R. No. 200114,
ISSUE:
Whether or not the the RTC has
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by
Debbie.
SSC v. Azote; G.R. No. 209741,
the beneficiary of the benefits. As
there was a proof of earlier
marriage with Rosemarie, and having
Edna unable to show that she was the
legal spouse of a deceased-member, she
would not qualify under the law to be the
beneficiary of the death benefits of
Edgardo.
SSC v. Ubana; G.R. No. 200114,
24 August 2015
FACTS:
In her complaint for damages against
the Social Security System (SSS), the DBP
Service Corporation, and the SSS Retirees
Association, Debbie alleged that in July
1995 she applied for employment with
the SSS.
SSC v. Ubana; G.R. No. 200114,
RULING
The Petition is DENIED. The Constitution
in the Article on Social Justice and Human
Rights exhorts Congress to highest
priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all people
to human dignity, reduce social, economic,
and political inequalities.
SSC v. Azote; G.R. No. 209741,
The denial of Edna's claim by the SSC
was correct. It should be emphasized that
the SSC determined Edna's eligibility on
the basis of available statistical data and
documents on their database. The SSC
examines to ensure that the benefits fall
into the rightful beneficiaries.
SSC v. Ubana; G.R. No. 200114,
24 August 2015
Ubana did not seek refuge from the
Labor Code in asking for the award of
damages. It was the transgression of
Article[s] 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code
that she was insisting in wagering this case.
The primary relief sought herein is for moral
and exemplary damages for the abuse of
rights.
SSC v. Ubana; G.R. No. 200114,
The very broad Article 19 of the Civil
Code requires every person, the
exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, [to] act with
justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good