RA 3844 – Code of Agrarian Reform (effective Whatever provisions of PD 27 that are

Aug. 13 1963) inconsistent with RA 6657 shall be

- Abolished share tenancy system SUPPLETORY to the latter, and all rights
- Termination of leasehold acquired by tenant-farmer under PD 27 are
PD 27 – Tenants Emancipation Decree of 1972 retained even with passage of RA 6657
(effective 1971)  Non-transferability, exceptions
- Tenant-beneficiary cannot sell/transfer
 Beneficiaries: tenant-farmers of private ownership of land EXCEPT: hereditary
agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and succession or to the government
corn under a system of sharecrop or lease- - Estolas v. Mabalot – Transfer of property
tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or acquired under PD 27 may only be made in
not favor of government or through hereditary
 Stages of land transfer: succession.
1. Issuance of CLT (Certificate of Land  Suppletory application on just
Transfer) to farmer-beneficiary - compensation
2. Issuance of EP (Emancipation Patent) - PD 27 only applies suppletory
 Cabral v. Heirs of Adolfo – tenancy - Determination of JC should be based on RA
relationship cannot be presumed; provision 6657 for lands covered under PD 27
declaring tenant-farmers as owners as of 1972 - Rationale: “reasonableness” of factors in
should not be construed as automatically determining JC
vesting upon them absolute ownership over  LBP v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz – Fixing of just
land they are tilling. Certain requirements must compensation should be based on parameters
also be complied with before full ownership is set out in RA 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228
vested having only suppletory effect
 Dela Cruz v Domingo – CLT does not vest  LBP v. Sps Rokaya – Acquisition of property
ownership in the holder thereof. CLT merely under OLT or PD 27 does not necessarily mean
evinces that grantee is “qualified” to avail that determination of JC must be under same
statutory mechanisms for acquisition of decree.
ownership under PD 27. On the other hand, EP  LBP v. Goduco – When reform process is still
presupposes that grantee has already complied incomplete because payment has not been
with requirements and serves as a basis for settled yet, and considering passage of RA
issuance of transfer certificate of title (TCT) 6657, just compensation should be determined
 Retention and process concluded under said law
- Landowner may retain area of not more  LBP v. Santos – Nowhere in DAR AO No.2
than 7 hectares, if such landowner is can it be said that submission of complete
cultivation or will now cultivate it documents is a pre-condition to release of initial
- Personal cultivation is not required. It can valuation to a landowner.
be done indirectly through LABOR
ADMINISTRATION Differences between lands of PD 27 & RA 6657
- If landowner exercises right of retention PD 27 RA 6657
under PD 27, he can no longer exercise Purpose Abolish Provide land for
right under CARL. He may keep 7-hectare leasehold in landless through
retention limit tenanted lands; acquiring and
- If he chooses to retain 5 hectares under make tiller of distributing lands,
CARL, 7 hectares shall be immediately land the owner and providing
placed under CARL of land he tills support facilities
- Jurisdiction: DAR Secretary (free from and system for
 Saguinsin v. Liban bondage of soil) benefit of farmers
- Requisites for coverage under OLT Hectares Irrigated: 3 Not exceeding 3
Program pursuant to PD 27: Not irrigated: 5
1. Land must be devoted to rice or corn Land Private lands ALL public and
crops Covered which are private agricultural
2. System of sharecrop or lease tenancy devoted to rice lands, including
obtains in the land and corn ONLY other lands of
 Sigre v. CA – It cannot be gainsaid that RA public domain
6657 did not repeal or supersede PD 27. suitable for
 agriculture farmer beneficiaries to maximize resources that
regardless of are granted to them which will improve their
tenurial quality of life (social justice)
arrangement and  Clearer dispute resolution mechanism –
commodity streamlined and better mechanism to address
produced and resolve legal disputes
Effect Suppletory to Main governing  The redistribution of lands, regardless of crops
RA 6657; law of agrarian or fruits produced, to farmers and regular
applicable to reform program farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of
matters not tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of
covered by 6657 factors and support services designed to lift the
Retentio 7 if personally 5 regardless economic status of the beneficiaries and all
n cultivated by whether landowner other arrangement alternative to the physical
landowner OR is tilling or not redistribution of lands, such as production or
will cultivate 3 – children (15 yrs profit-sharing, labor administration, and the
old and above, distribution of stock, which will allow
personally beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits
cultivating or of the lands they work. [Section 3(a) of RA
directly managing 6657]
may retain not  Remedial measure pursuant to social justice
exceeding 3 precept of the Constitution but it was not meant
to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of
CA 141/ Homestead Act
RA 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform  Enacted for welfare and protection of the poor
Program (effective June 15, 1988)  Gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he
may build a modest house for himself and
“Comprehensive” family and plant what is necessary for
 Law does not anymore limit its application substinence and satisfaction of life’s other
depending on primary crops planted and it does needs
not just apply to private agricultural lands
 It is not mere land transfer – farmers are aided Distinguished from Land Reform
and trained how to fully & efficiently use human  Land Reform is the physical redistribution of
and natural resources land such as the program under Presidential
Decree No. 27. Agrarian reform means the
Declaration of principles and policies (Sec. 2) redistribution of lands including the totality of
 Welfare of the landless farmers and factors and support services designed to lift the
farmworkers will receive the highest economic status of the beneficiaries. Thus,
consideration to promote social justice. It also agrarian reform is broader than land reform.
promotes industrialization, employment and
privatization of public sector enterprises Coverage of the CARP
 All alienable and disposable lands of the public
Agrarian Reform domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
 Agrarian reform is a distinct and separate No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to
program from a mere land reform. It seeks to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the
transfer land and seek to bestow ownership to approval of this Act until Congress, taking into
farmers with the end in view that there be account ecological, developmental and equity
agricultural activities undertaken in that specific considerations, shall have determined by law,
portion of land. the specific limits of the public domain;
 Agro-industrialization - It recognizes the  All lands of the public domain in excess of the
impact of technology on agricultural activities on specific limits as determined by Congress in the
how agriculture is being done preceding paragraph;
 Traditional practices are still recognized but  All other lands owned by the Government
because of the developments in technology, devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
this law mandates the government to provide  All private lands devoted to or suitable for
the training, necessary knowledge and in some agriculture regardless of the agricultural
cases equipment and machinery in order for products raised or that can be raised thereon.

Three Pronged Approach
 Implementation, rule-making, dispute resolution
 Specialized aspect: financing (LBP – official
financial intermediary for operation of agrarian
reform)
Exemptions from coverage
1. Private lands actually, directly and
exclusively used for prawn farms and
fishponds shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act: Provided, That said
prawn farms and fishponds have not been
distributed and Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
2. All lands with eighteen percent (18%)
slope and over which are not developed for
agriculture
3. In the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court has
excluded agricultural lands devoted to
Commercial Livestock, Poultry and
Swine Raising from the coverage of CARL
4. Under Section 103, excluded from the
coverage of the CARL are lands actually,
directly and exclusively used for:
a. Parks;
b. Wildlife;
c. Forest reserves;
d. Reforestation;
e. Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;
f. Watersheds and mangroves.
5. Likewise, excluded from the coverage the
CARL are lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be
necessary for:
a. National defense;
b. School sites and campuses including
experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational
purposes;
c. Seeds and seedling research and pilot
production center;
d. Church sites and convents appurtenant
thereto;
e. Mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto;
f. Communal burial grounds and
cemeteries;
g. Penal colonies and penal farms actually
worked by the inmates; and
h. Government and private research and
quarantine centers.
Agriculture and Agricultural Activity
 Under RA 6657, they are given “lex specialis”
definition
 Agricultural land refers to land devoted to
agricultural activity and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land
 Agricultural activity means the cultivation of
the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees,
raising of fish, including the harvesting of such
farm products, and other farm activities and
practices performed by a farmer in conjunction
with such farming operations done by persons
whether natural or juridical
 In Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary, inclusion of
raising of livestock, poultry or fish was assailed
as unconstitutional. According to SC, (1)
intention was to exclude agro-farming activities
from agrarian reform under the Constitution (2)
Constitutional deliberations show that term
“agricultural” was adopted to mean excluding
“piggery, poultry, and livestock
 The spirit of agrarian reform laws is not to
disturb lands per se, but to enable the
landless to own land for cultivation. – Holy
Trinity Realty v. Dela Cruz
Coverage
 Coverage – agricultural lands
 Definition – lands devoted to agricultural
activities as defined in the law, and not
classified as otherwise
 Lex specialis definition – special meaning of
agriculture/agricultural activity under the law
Agrarian Dispute
 Refers to any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise, over lands
devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers’ associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements.
 It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under this
Act and other terms and conditions of transfer
of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries,
whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee
 Requisites:
1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant
2. Subject matter is agricultural land
 3. Consent between parties
4. Purpose is agricultural production
5. Personal cultivation by tenant
6. Sharing of harvests between parties
Homestead Grantees
 Homestead Patent - mode of acquiring
alienable and disposable lands of public
domain for agricultural purposes
conditioned upon actual cultivation and
residence. It is filed at CENRO where land
being applied is located.
 Who are qualified? Citizens of Philippines
over 18 years old & not an owner of more
than 12 hectares of land
Right of Homesteaders > Right of Tenants
 Constitution (Art. 13, Sec. 6) and CARL
(Sec. 6) respect the superiority of rights
of homesteaders over rights of tenants
 Owners or direct compulsory heirs of lands
acquired through homestead grants of Free
Patents under CA 141 or the Homestead
Act are entitled to retain the entire area
even if it exceeds 5 hectares as long as
they were cultivating the same at the time of
approval of CARL June 15, 1988 continue
to cultivate the same
Retention rights
 Landowner has right to retain not more than
5 hectares of his landholdings
 Maximum retention: 5 hectares
 Retained area does not have to be
personally cultivated by the landowner.
Cultivation can be done indirectly through
labor administration
 Landowner who already exercised retention
rights under PD 27 cannot exercise
retention rights under CARP
 If landowner chooses to retain 5 hectares
under CARL, 7 hectares previously
retained under PD 27 shall be immediately
placed under CARP.
Can spouses retain 5 hectares each under
the agrarian reform law?
 Conjugal or Absolute Community -
spouses can only retain 5 hectares
 Separation of property - spouses can
retain 5 hectares each or a total of 10
hectares
Landowner has right to choose area to be
retained
1. Landowner’s choice of area to be retained
prevails as long as:
 Chosen area must be compact
or contiguous
 Does not exceed retention ceiling of 5
hectares
2. Landowner must exercise his right of retention
within 60 days from receipt of Notice of Coverage
3. Failure of landowner to exercise right of
retention – MARO will designate retained area
for landowner, if landowner fails to exercise his
right of retention within allotted time
Can a landowner exercise right to retention
over the land which has already been covered
by an EP or CLOA?
 Emancipation Patent or Certificate of Land
Ownership Award to beneficiaries does not
absolutely bar landowner from retaining
area covered (Daez v. CA)
 If landowner is deprived of right to retention,
he may file a petition for cancellation of EP
or CLOA issued to the tenants
 EP or CLOA may be cancelled, if land
covered is found to be part of landowner’s
retained area
Exceptions to the retention limit of 5 hectares
 Landowners whose lands have been
covered by PD 27; and
 Original homestead grantees or direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of
CARL, as long as they continue to cultivate
said homestead.
 Provincial, city and municipal government
units acquiring private agricultural lands by
expropriation or other modes of
acquisition to be used for actual, direct
and exclusive public purposes, such as
roads and bridges, public markets, school
sites, resettlement sites, local government
facilities, public parks and barangay plazas
or squares, consistent with the approved
local comprehensive land use plan, shall not
be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention
limit under this Section and Sections 70 and
73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended: Provided, That lands subject to
CARP shall first undergo the land
acquisition and distribution process of the
program: Provided, further, That when these
lands have been subjected to expropriation,
 the agrarian reform beneficiaries therein
shall be paid just compensation [Section 6-
A].
Suppose the retention area chosen by the
landowner is tenanted, what happens to the
tenant?
 Tenant may choose:
a. remain therein or
b. to be a beneficiary in the same or
another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features
 Option must be exercised within a period
of 1 year from time landowner manifests
choice of area for retention
 Law refers to an Agricultural Tenant, not
just any settler on the land substantial
evidence of landlord tenant relationship
must exist
1. Landowner has engaged a person to
personally cultivate an agricultural land
2. Landowner is compensated
 in terms of share in produce
(share tenancy)
 in terms of price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in
money or both (leasehold
tenancy)
 Mere occupation or cultivation of an
agricultural land will not ipso facto make
tiller an agricultural tenant
Commercial farming (Sec. 11)
 Commercial farms are lands devoted to:
1. Saltbeds
2. Fruit farms
3. Orchards
4. Vegetable and cut flower farms
5. Cacao, coffee, and rubber
plantations
 They are subject to compulsory acquisition
and distribution after 10 years from
effectivity
Qualifications of commercial farm beneficiaries
1. 18 years old at time of filing of application
as beneficiary
2. Willingness, aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make land productive
3. Must have been employed in commercial
farm between June 15 1988 or upon
expiration of deferment
4. Farm workers who have worked the
longest on the land continuously will be
given priority
Disqualified to become commercial farm
beneficiaries
1. Farm workers who have retired from
service, whether optional or compulsory
2. Farm workers who have resigned from
their employment with the farm
3. Farm workers who have been dismissed
for cause
4. Farm workers, lessees, or tenants who
waive or refuse to be a beneficiary
5. Farm workers, lessees or tenants who have
committed a violation of agrarian reform
laws and regulations
Improvement of Tenurial and Labor Relations
 In order to protect and improve the tenurial
and economic status of the farmers in
tenanted lands under the retention limit and
lands not yet acquired under this Act, the
DAR is mandated to determine and fix
immediately the lease rentals thereof in
accordance with Section 34 of Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended: provided, that the
DAR shall immediately and periodically
review and adjust the rental structure for
different crops, including rice and corn,
or different regions in order to improve
progressively the conditions of the farmer,
tenant or lessee
Registration of Landowners
Sec. 14 – Registration of Landowners
 Within 180 days from the effectivity of
CARL, landowners, natural or juridical, shall
file a sworn statement in the assessor's
office the following information:
a. the description and area of the
property;
b. the average gross income from the
property for at least 3 years;
c. the names of all tenants and
farmworkers therein;
d. the crops planted in the property and
the area covered by the crop as of June
1, 1987;
e. the terms of mortgages, leases and
management contracts subsisting as of
June 1, 1987; and
f. the latest declared market value of the
land as determined by the city or
provincial assessor.
Sec. 15 – Registration of Beneficiaries
 DAR, in coordination with the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) shall
register all agricultural lessees, tenants and
 farmworkers who are qualifies to be
beneficiaries under the CARL. These
potential beneficiaries shall provide the
following data:
a. names and members of their
immediate farm household;
b. owners and administrators of the
lands they work on and the length of
tenurial relationship;
c. location and area of the land they
work;
d. crops planted; and
e. their share in the harvest or
amount of rental paid or wages
received.
Purpose
 Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of
landowners and beneficiaries with DAR. Its
purpose is to establish databank and
identify actual farmer-beneficiaries
Land Acquisition Procedure
1. Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) [Section
20]
a. Must be submitted to the DAR within one
year from effectivity of the CARL;
b. Must not be less favorable to the
transferee than those of the government's
standing ; and
c. Shall include sanctions for non-
compliance by either party and shall be duly
recorded and its implementation monitored
by the DAR.
d. Only those submitted by June 30, 2009
shall be allowed.
2. Compulsory Acquisition [Section 16]
a. Notice to acquire the land shall be sent to
the landowner and the beneficiaries. The
notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place in the municipal building and the
barangay hall of the place where the
property is located.
b. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
written notice, the landowner shall inform
the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of
the offer.
c. If the offer is accepted, the LBP pays the
landowner and within thirty (30) days, the
landowner executes and delivers a deed of
transfer to the Government and surrenders
the Certificate of Title and other muniments
of title.
d. In case of rejection or failure to reply, the
DAR shall conduct summary administrative
proceedings to determine the
compensation. If he does concur with the
compensation determined by the DAR, he
can the matter to the Courts. e. Payment of
the just compensation as determined by the
DAR or the Court.
f. Registration with the Register of Deeds for
the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title
in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines.
g. Standing Crops: The landowner shall
retain his share of any standing crops
unharvested at the time the DAR shall take
possession of the land and shall be given
reasonable time to harvest the same
(Section 28)
2 notices to the landowner are required for
validity of implementation
 Notice of Coverage – pursuant DAR AO
12, series of 1989 (in compliance with
administrative due process)
 Notice of Acquisition – pursuant to Sec.
16 of CARL
Land acquisition procedure should be strictly
construed
 Reason: Land acquisition under agrarian
reform law is an extraordinary method of
expropriation
 Failure of DAR or any of its agencies to
comply with proper procedure for
expropriation is a violation of
constitutional due process and in effect
arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and tainted
with grave abuse of discretion
 Ex: No notice of coverage issued
When title or ownership of the land is
transferred to the State
 Only upon full payment of just
compensation
 Title and ownership remains with landowner
until final determination of just
compensation and full payment
 Mere fact that DAR deposited offered price
with Land Bank does not warrant
cancellation of owner’s title
Determination of Just Compensation
 The cost of acquisition of the land, the value
of the standing crop, the current: value of
like properties, its nature, actual use and
income, the sworn valuation by the owner,
the tax declarations, the assessment made
by government assessors, and seventy
 percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR),
translated into a basic formula by the DAR
shall be considered, subject to the final
decision of the proper court. The social
and economic benefits contributed by the
farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the
nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institution on the
said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation [Section
17].
Concept of just compensation
 In Assoc, of Small Landowners, it was
defined as “full and fair equivalent of
property taken from owner by
expropriation”
 Measure is not taker’s gain but the owner’s
loss
 “Just” – used to intensify meaning of the
word “compensation” to convey the idea
that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full and ample
 Correct determination of amount to be paid
to the landowner and prompt payment
 Payment within a reasonable time from
taking of immediate deposit and release of
provisional compensation
 Full payment of finally adjudged just
compensation
 Without prompt payment, compensation
is not just because landowner is made to
suffer consequence of being immediately
deprived on land while being made to wait
before receiving amount necessary to cope
with his loss
 Reimbursement is conditioned on Land
Bank’s approval and release of the amount
is made to depend upon compliance with
documentary requirements
Factors used in valuation of lands (Sec. 17)
1. Capital Net Income (CNI) - based on land use
and productivity
2. Comparable Sales (CS) - 70% of BIR zonal
value
3. Market Value (MV) - based on tax declaration
 Sec. 17 was converted into a formula by the
DAR through AO 6, Series of 1992, as
amended by AO 11, Series of 1994. There shall
be 1 basic formula for valuation of lands
covered by VO or CA regardless of date of offer
or coverage of claim (LBP v. Dumlao)
 Land Value (LV) = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) +
(MV x 0.1)
Reckoning of valuation
 GR: Basis for just compensation is the
value of property at time it was taken
from owner and appropriated to the
government o if government takes
possession of land before institution of
expropriation proceedings, value shall
be fixed as of time of taking of
possession
 Not the time of filing of the complaint
 Time of taking
 Stage when title is transferred to
government or beneficiaries AND
 The time when agricultural land
voluntarily offered by landowner was
approved by PARC for agrarian reform
coverage through stock distribution
scheme
However, if there is undue delay in payment
 Value of property should be determined
at time of full payment of just
compensation
 Lubrica v. Land Bank
 Lubrica was deprived of property in
1972 but as of 2006, Lubrica was still
not justly compensated
 Inequitable to determine just
compensation based on time of taking
considering the failure to determine just
compensation for a considerable length
of time
 Just compensation should be full and
fail equivalent of the property taken from
its owner by the expropriator, the
equivalent being real, substantial, full
and ample.
Payment of interest in just compensation
 LBP v. Gallego
 Just compensation does not only refer to the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken; it also
means, equally if not more than anything,
payment in full without delay. Consequently,
we deem it proper to award the respondents
 12% interest per annum from the time of
taking until full payment.
Beneficiaries (Sec. 22)
1. Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
2. Regular Farmworkers: a natural person
who is employed on a permanent basis by
an agricultural enterprise or farm [Section
3(h)];
a. Farmer refers to a natural person
whose primary livelihood is
cultivation of land or the production
of agricultural crops, livestock and/or
fisheries either by himself/herself, or
primarily with the assistance of
his/her immediate farm household,
whether the land is owned by
him/her, or by another person under
a leasehold or share tenancy
agreement or arrangement with the
owner thereof [Section 3(f)].
b. Farmworker is a natural person who
renders service for value as an
employee or laborer in an
agricultural enterprise or farm
regardless of whether his
compensation is paid on a daily,
weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis.
It includes an individual whose work
has ceased as a consequence of, or
in connection with, a pending
agrarian dispute and who has not
obtained a substantially equivalent
and regular farm employment
[Section 3(g)].
3. Seasonal farmworkers: a natural person
who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or
intermittent basis by an agricultural
enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent
or an non- permanent laborer, such as
"dumaan", "sacada", and the like [Section
3(i)];
4. Other farmworkers: a farmworker who is
not a regular nor a seasonal farmworker
[Section 3(j)];
5. Actual tillers or occupants of public
lands;
6. Collective or cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries; and
a. Cooperatives shall refer to
organizations composed primarily of
small agricultural producers,
farmers, farmworkers, or other
agrarian reform beneficiaries who
voluntarily organize themselves for
the purpose of pooling land, human,
technological, financial or other
economic resources, and operated
on the principle of one member, one
vote. A juridical person may be a
member of a cooperative, with the
same rights and duties as a natural
person [Section 3(k)].
7. Others directly working on the land.
Awards
1. Emancipation Patents (EPs) are issued for
lands covered under Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree No.
27.
2. Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) are issued for private agricultural
lands and resettlement areas covered under
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988.
3. Free Patents are issued for public
agricultural lands.
a. Under Section 15 of EO 229 (1987),
all alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain suitable for
agriculture and outside proclaimed
settlements shall be redistributed by
the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR).
4. Certificates of Stewardship Contracts are
issued for forest areas under the Integrated
Social Forestry Program.
When does DAR issue CLOA?
 DAR will issue CLOA only upon full
payment of amortization by farmer
beneficiary
 CLOA becomes basis for issuance in his
name of original or transfer certificate of
title
 DAR AO 5, Series of 2019 – PARO –
Beneficiary instead of LBP
Manner of Payment (Sec. 26)
1. Lands awarded shall be paid by the
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations at six percent (6%) interest
per annum. The payments for the first three (3)
years after the awards may be at reduced
amounts as established by the PARC:
Provided, That the first five (5) annual
payments may not be more than five percent
(5%) of the value of the annual gross
production as established by the DAR. Should
the scheduled annual payments after the fifth
year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual
 gross production and the failure to produce
accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault,
the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce
the principal obligation to make the repayment
affordable.
2. Payment shall be:
a. Thirty (30) annual amortizations (First 3
years may be at reduced amounts);
b. Six percent (6%) interest per annum;
and
c. First five (5) annual payments may not
be more than five percent (5%) of the
value of the annual gross production.
Transferability of Awarded Lands (Sec. 27)
 Lands acquired by beneficiaries may not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except
through hereditary succession, or to the
government, or to the Land Bank of the
Philippines, or to other qualified
beneficiaries through the DAR for a period
of ten (10) years.
 If the land is sold to the government or to
the LBP, the children or the spouse of the
transferee shall have a right to repurchase
within a period of two (2) years.
CLOA is indefeasible
 Titles brought under operation of Torrens
system
 Same indefeasibility and security
 CLOAs and other titles issued under
agrarian reform program becomes
indefeasible and imprescriptible after 1
year from registration with Office of Registry
of Deeds
 Subject to conditions, limitations and
qualifications under CARL, PRD and other
laws
 CANCELLATION OF CLOAS - all cases for
cancellation of CLOAs and other titles
issued under agrarian reform program –
exclusive and original jurisdiction of
Secretary of DAR
Jurisdiction (Sec. 50)
 The Department of Agrarian Reform is
hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matter involving the
implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
 Quasi-judicial powers (vested by law, limited
in nature, not bound by technical rules like
ROC)
DAR Adjudicator
 Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB)
i. Exercises both original and
appellate jurisdiction
ii. Exercises functional supervision
over the RARADs and PARADs
 Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD)
i. Executive Adjudicator in his region
ii. Receives, hears and adjudicates
cases which the PARAD cannot
handle because the latter is
disqualified or inhibits himself or
because the case is complex or
sensitive
 Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD)
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Sec. of Agrarian
Reform
 Matter involving strictly the administrative
implementation of the CARP and
agrarian laws and regulations shall be the
exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
 The DAR shall not take cognizance of
any agrarian dispute of controversy
unless a certification from the BARC that
the dispute has been submitted to it for
mediation and conciliation without any
success of settlement is presented. [Section
53]
 Failure to present a BARC certification is
not a ground for dismissal of the action.
The complainant or petitioner will be given
every opportunity to secure the BARC
certification. [Rule III, Section 1(c) of the
DARAB Rules]
Judicial Review
 Any decision, order, award or ruling of the
DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any
matter pertaining to the application,
implementation, enforcement or
interpretation of the CARL and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be
brought to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of a copy thereof. [Section 54]
  The findings of fact of the DAR shall be
final and conclusive if based on
substantial evidence.
 Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be
immediately executory. [Section 50]
Lecture (Oct. 15, 2020)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
 Land reform – govt program for assistance to
farmers for those who have little or none at all.
Purpose is to be given a chance to own the
land and extended benefits of loans, equitable
rentals, taxes, cooperatives as assisted by govt
 Agrarian reform – redistribution of land
regardless of crops produced. Distribute lands
to farmers or workers who are considered
landless
 Considered “comprehensive”, there can be
labor administration, stock distribution, profit
sharing. Its not just land distribution (Sec. 3, RA
6657)
 Analysis – agrarian reform law only applies to
“agricultural land”
 Natalia Realty – undeveloped portion of a
subdivision was reclassified thus not covered
by CARL.
 Owner cultivatorship – uses family as persons
who will help him till his land
 Important: Agrarian reform is generally, it is
physical redistribution of land. Other modes are
also available: labor administration, stock
distribution, profit sharing
 Take note: Luz Farms v. Sec of DAR
 SC held here that there’s no reason to include
“livestock and poultry lands” in the coverage of
CARL as they are classified as industrial and
not agricultural lands
 Livestock and poultry lands and swine farming
does not till the land and produces no crop thus
it is not agricultural and not covered
Agrarian dispute
 Requisites:
1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant (other
party must be someone who cultivates the land)
2. Subject matter is agricultural land
3. Consent between parties (if no consent, no
tenancy relationship that is created – you may use
this as a ground to dismiss for it being not an
agrarian dispute)
4. Purpose is agricultural production
5. Personal cultivation by tenant
6. Sharing of harvests between parties
 Tenancy relationship is involved in agrarian dispute
 Security of tenure – different from Labor law;
security over tenancy relationship thus you cannot
be ousted from your tenanted land; it can only be
invoked by a tenant de jure
 Tenant de jure – complied with requisites of being
a tenant, tenancy relationship is established and in
the eyes of law
 How can you be a tenant de jure? Tenancy
relationship must be created. It must be with the
consent of the true and lawful owner of the land. If
there is consent from owner (can be lessor,
usufructuary etc). CONSENT IS MATERIAL
 How to establish tenancy relationship? Can be
verbally or in writing (express or implied). Basically
its like a contract. Once established, tenant is
entitled to security of tenure
 How to extinguish tenancy relationship? By
voluntary surrender to government, abandon the
land, incapacitated to administer the property (civil
interdiction), upon death of tenant.
 In case of death or incapacity, tenancy relationship
continues upon owner/landholder and member of
tenant’s immediate farm household
 What are the indicia of determining of existence
of tenancy relationship? Intent/understanding of
parties, written agreement between the parties
(however, this is not mandatory)
 All requisites of tenancy relationship must be
present. Otherwise, occupant of a parcel of a land
cannot be considered as a tenant under the
agrarian reform
 Quantum of evidence required: only substantial
evidence
 Thus, judgment for determination for tenancy
relationship, it may only be reversed by appeal on
CA
 Determination for tenancy relationship – not only
legal but also factual
 Tenant cannot be ejected while a claim for tenancy
is pending with DARAB
 Ex: A got a judgment in a land registration case
against B, the alleged landowner. C is a tenant de
jure. A questioned the occupancy of C as
invalid/unlawful. Can A possess the land while
being occupied by C? NO. Issue of tenancy is still
pending
 Landholder – natural/juridical who is the owner,
lessor, usufructuary or legal possessor of an
agricultural land
 Tenant – by himself or with aid cultivates the land
belonging to or possessed by another with consent
of the other and basically cultivating and tilling the
land
Distinction of civil law lease and leasehold
tenancy
 Subject matter: LT (limited to agricultural land);
CL (may either be agricultural or other property
– residential or urban)
 Tenant: LT (personally cultivate)
 Purpose: LT (devoted to agriculture); CL (for
any other lawful purpose)
 Law: LT (governed by special laws); CL
(governed by Civil Code)
 Tenancy relationship may be created impliedly.
Consent may be gain impliedly.
 Without consent, possessor of land cannot
claim that his illegal possession has ripened
into tenancy. Law prohibits usurpation of land.
 If management and administration was left
entirely to hands of overseer/administrator,
administrator may install a tenant. Administrator
is an extension of personality of owner
 Future heir cannot institute a tenant. Their right
is merely inchoate. Thus they do not have legal
personality to institute tenant
 Take note of definition and exemptions of idle
and abandonment of lands (esp: force majeure)
Definition of farmer and farmworker
 Farmer – natural person whose primary
livelihood is …
 Farmworker – take note of types (seasonal,
regular)
Coverage of CARP
 Exclusions
 Schedule of implementation: June 30, 2014
 Discussion on extension made was not legal or
no actual extension but still latest date is until
June 30, 2014. Therefore, no more land
distribution.
 Answer: if you were issued a notice of
coverage, and process has started then you are
not covered by this deadline (Basis: Sec. 30??).
However, if no NC then no more right for
government to acquire and distribute land since
such right ended on July 30, 2014.
 Take note of exceptions for 10-year period
retention limit: commercial farming
Homestead grants and free patents (CA 141)
 Retained by grantees and not covered by
CARP as long as they are cultivating and
continue to cultivate
 If they do not cultivate, then it may be subject to
acquisition
 In relation to marriage, A owns 5 hectares of
land and B owns 5 hectares of land. Then they
married: depends on property regime
 ACP/CP: only 5 hectares
 Separation: 5 hectares each for a total of 10
 Landowner has right to choose for landholding
to retain under compulsory acquisition. Option
can be exercised and it can be
compact/contiguous area. As long as it does
not exceed 5 hectares
 Land owner should exercise of right of retention
within 60 days from receipt of notice or
publication of coverage (constructive notice).
Failure to exercise, it will be MARO who will
choose retained area. Failure to apply for
retention does not constitute estoppel. You will
always have that right
 What if area that landowner chose is tenanted?
Tenant must exercise the following options
within period of 1 year when landowner made
choice:
1. Continue being a tenant and lose right of
beneficiary under CARP
2. Not remain a tenant but be a beneficiary in
other land
 Take note: Landowner’s children
(legitimate/illegitimate) is entitled to 3 hectares
each
 Requisites: at least 15, he is cultivating the land
 Land awarded to qualified children cannot be
sold within 10 years except hereditary
succession, sold to government, LBP and other
qualified beneficiaries under the program
 Right of children/spouse to repurchase the land
within 2 years from date of transfer
 If there’s a sale, disposition, lease
management, contract etc executed by
landowner in violation of RA 6657 is null and
void (reason: just to escape retention limits)
Social Legislation – improvement of social
conditions
Social Security Act
It is the policy of the Republic of the Philippines to
establish, develop, promote and perfect a sound
and viable tax-exempt social security service
suitable to the needs of the people throughout the
Philippines which shall promote social justice and
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. Towards this end, the State shall
endeavor to extend social security protection to
workers and their beneficiaries.
Jurisdiction (Sec. 5)
Any dispute arising under RA 8282 with respect to
coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties
thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be
cognizable by the Commission, and any case filed
with respect thereto shall be heard by the
Commission, or any of its members, or by hearing
officers duly authorized by the Commission and
decided within twenty (20) days after the
submission of the evidence. The filing,
determination and settlement of disputes shall be
governed by the rules and regulations promulgated
by the Commission.
Employer (Sec. 8)
Any person, natural or juridical, domestic orforeign,
who carries on in the Philippines any trade,
business, industry, undertaking or activity of any
kind and uses the services of another person who
is under his orders as regards the employment,
except the
Government and any of its political subdivisions,
branches or
instrumentalities, including corporations owned or
controlled by the Government: Provided, That a
self-employed person shall be both employee and
employer at the same time.
Employee
(d) Employee — 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 services, where there is an
employer-employee relationship:
Provided, That a self-employed person shall be
both employee and employer at the same time.
Conclusiveness of judgment (“res judicata”)
When does judgment become final and executory?
In labor cases, appeal is only within 10 days. When
is there an appeal? There is an appeal from LA to
NLRC by virtue of memorandum of appeal aside
from paying the docket fees. There is no appeal
from NLRC to CA.
There are two instances where there can be final
judgment in Labor Court
1. There is decision in LA and there is no appeal
taken within 10days that means LA’s decision is
final and executory
2. If there is an appeal of LA’s decision, NLRC
then will have a decision and it becomes
final and executory. Your proof is certificate of
finality to be issued by the Executive Clerk of
Court of the NLRC.
Compulsory coverage
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a
month is covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
 A household-helper is any person who
renders domestic or household services
exclusively to a household employer such
driver, gardener, cook, governess, and
other similar occupations.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the
standard contract or employment between the
seafarer and the manning agency which, together
with the foreign ship owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government,
international organization or their wholly- owned
instrumentality based in the Philippines, which
entered into an administrative agreement with the
SSS for the coverage of its Filipino workers
Benefits
- Covered employees are entitled to a package of
benefits under social security and EC in the
event of death, disability, sickness, maternity,
and old-age
- Self-employed and voluntary members also get
same benefits except those benefits under the
EC program
Dependents and beneficiaries
Primary:
(1) Legitimate dependent spouse until the person
remarries;
(2) dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally
adopted and illegitimate children who are not yet 21
years old.
Secondary: In the absence of primary, dependent
parents.
In their absence, any other person designated by
member in record.
Controlling consideration – the fact that child,
spouse, parent is financially dependent for support
upon employee (PJI v. JEU)
Retirement benefits
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
Death benefits
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or
lump sum paid
to the beneficiaries of a deceased member.
Permanent disability benefits
Some total permanent disabilities:
1. Complete loss of sight of both eyes
2. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankles
or wrists
3. Permanent complete paralysis of two
limbs
4. Brain injury resulting to incurable
imbecility or insanity
5. Such cases as determined and approved
by SSS
Maternity benefit leave
Maternity Benefit
• It is a daily cash allowance granted to female
member who wasunable to work due to childbirth or
miscarriage. Not necessary that female is legally
married.
• It is equivalent to 100% of member’s average
daily salary credit multiplied by 60 days for
normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for
caesarian section delivery.
Right to institute
Sec. 22 - “The right to institute the necessary action
against the 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.”
Penal clause
Who can file?
(i) Criminal action arising from a violation of the
provisions of this Act may be commenced by the
SSS or the employee concerned either under this
Act or in appropriate cases under the Revised
Penal Code: Provided, That such criminal action
may be filed by the SSS in the city or municipality
where the SSS office is located, if the violation was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction or in
Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.
Nov. 12, 2020 – AGRA LECTURE
· Meaning of Social Legislation
· Difference between Social Legislation and
Social Justice as discussed by the case of
Calalang v. Williams
· Why is the Social Security Act considered
social legislation? It promotes social justice,
provides benefits to the people.
· Membership with SSS as a general rule is
mandatory in order to generate funds.
o Who are covered? Employees of the
private sector, not over 60 years old.
o Are employers included? Why? Yes.
They have obligations under the law.
o Who are employers? What about
employees? SEE DEFINITIONS
o What are the tests to determine their
relationship? Four-fold and economic
reality tests.
o Who pays the contributions? Employer
deducts from employee compensation.
o What is the difference between
compulsory and voluntary coverage?
Who are compulsorily and voluntarily
covered? SEE ENUMERATIONS
· 2 Types of program:
1. Social Security Program
2. Employees' Compensation (EC) Program 
· Difference between Social Security program and
Employees’ Compensation Program
· What are the benefits under SSS?
· Employment disputes: Can the SSC decide on
the E-ER? Yes, Art 217 of the LC (except claims
for ECC, all other cases fall under jurisdiction of
NLRC. Meaning to say, if you want to question
about existence of EE relationship, you can file
with SSC
· Kasambahay Act - Sec 30 - Domestic workers
who have rendered at least one month of
service shall be covered by the SSS…
The premium contributions shall be paid:
1. For kasambahays who receive a monthly
wage of less the 5k - the employer’s contribution
and the domestic worker’s contribution shall be
borne solely by the employer
2. For kasambahays who received a monthly
wage of 5k and above - the domestic worker and
the employer shall shoulder their respective
contributions
· Independent contractor - NO E-ER but they are
still covered and considered as self-employes
(both the employer and employee)
· Employee who fails to submit the requirements.
- Who is liable?
- Under the law, the employer is still liable bc in
the first place all the requirements should have
been submitted before the employee was hired.
Lecture (Nov. 19)
Compulsory Coverage
 GR: Employer pays for contribution
 XPN: at least P5000 and above, then
proportionate sharing of contribution
 Importance: there is criminal liability for
failure to register househelps to SSS as well
as failure of paying contributions
Voluntary Coverage
 Who are covered?
 Spouses who devote full time in household
affairs
 OFWs recruited by foreign based employers
 Employees previously under compulsory
coverage but already separated from
employment, or those without income (may
choose to continue remitting contributions)
 Take note: foreign govt, international
organizations (ex: US embassy, WHO).
They can enter agreement into Philippine
government to include their Filipino
employees to register in SSS
 - Difference between casual and contractual in
Lecture (Dec. 3, 2020)
 Compulsory coverage
 Exclusions
 Dependents and beneficiaries (sharing by
dependent children – does not distinguish
between legitimate and illegitimate unlike SSS
Law)
 What do you mean by legitimate
descendants?
 Benefits – important to compute service of
government employee to know benefits
 Enumerate the benefits under GSIS Law
 Monthly pension – what’s the formula for
computing basic monthly pension? BMP =
RAMC x (2.5% x RCS)
Retirement Benefits
 Eligibility requirements
 2 types of retirement benefits – lump sum of
BMP (60 months) or cash payment of 18 times
 Take note: 5 year lump sum is guaranteed –
1st option; if retiree dies early then he will just
receive – 2nd option
Permanent total/partial disability benefits
 Difference between permanent total and
permanent partial
 Eligibility requirements
Temporary total/partial disability benefits
 Only temporary total benefits is compensable
Death benefits/ survivorship benefits
 Cash payment – (Sec. 21)
Funeral benefits (Sec. 23)
Next week: discuss on ECC Law, Portability Law;
difference between SSS and GSIS Law
· Coverage
- Who are covered?
- Exceptions
relation to the GSIS Law
- “Dependents”
- Legitimate and illegitimate children have no
distinction when it comes with the share of
benefits (unlike the SSS law)
Who are the primary and secondary
beneficiaries?
As to secondary beneficiaries, who are
legitimate descendants? Nieces, nephews,
grandchildren
1. Benefits
- important to compute service of
government employee to know benefits
 - Enumerate the benefits under the GSIS
Law
- Monthly pension what’s the formula for
computing basic monthly pension? BMP =
RAMC x (2.5% x RCS)
100% of his average monthly compensation
for each year of service (but not less than
12k) shall be paid in advance, provided that
he has rendered at least 3 years of service
at the time of his disability

What is creditable service?

Juan was elected as councilor for three terms. 4. Temporary disability benefits
He was later appointed as RD of the DENR for
- only temporary total benefit is
10 years. Then he worked for an NGO for
compensable
another 10 years. How many years creditable? - Bar from acquiring the sick benefits with
Only 19 (three terms + 10 years as RD) other benefits

5. Death/Survivorship Benefits
2. Retirement benefits
- Eligibility requirements - What is this benefit?
2 Types of retirement benefits
- Question: Gov’t employee already retired.
- 5 year lump sum equivalent to 60 months He was receiving monthly pension. 5 years
basic monthly pension. (This option is after he died. Are the beneficiaries entitled
guaranteed even if he dies) to survivorship benefits? (see SEC 21)

- Cash payment benefit equivalent to 18 6. Funeral Benefits (Sec 23)

times of the basic monthly pension plus
monthly pension payable for life. (What is
the main consideration? Your health. If
the retiree dies 6 months after, he will only 7.
receive 24 months times)
- Define
Aside from the benefits that we mention,
what other benefits are available:

You were in the private sector for 10 years. You 1. Separation Benefits
were 55 years old when you became legal
counsel for the city for 5 years. Then you were 2. Unemployment Benefits
elected as mayor until you were 65. Are you
entitled to retirement benefits? No, not entitled 3. Life Insurance
under the GSIS Law. Less than 15 years of
creditable service. May be entitled under Civil 8. Con-comm and the judiciary are only
Service Law. covered under the life insurance benefits

3. Disability benefits

- What is your understanding?

- Permanent total disability

- Differentiate Permanent Total Disability

and Permanent Partial Disability

- Examples of each

- Requirements for eligibility of this benefit

- If the eligibility requirement has not been

met? - His separation benefit equivalent to

ECC Law (Workmens Compensation Act)
- Presumption of compensability
- Art. 180 – Jurisdiction of ECC
Separate from SSS Law
 Program provided for in Art. 172-215 of the
Labor Code where a fund (State Insurance
Fund) is established through premium
payments exacted from employers and from
which employees and their dependents in the
event of work-connected disability or death,
may promptly secure adequate income
benefit, and medical or related benefits
Payment from employer alone
 Established through premium payments
exacted from employers
Work-Injury Nexus
 In the event of work-connected disability or
death
Requisite for Compensation
 Coverage + Compensable Injury
1. Coverage
 All employers, regardless of nature
(natural/juridical; private/public)
 All employees who are: not over 60 or over 60
but had been paying contributions to either
SSS or GSIS, are covered by ECC
2. Compensable Injury
 Any harmful change in the human organism
from any accident arising out of and in the
course of employment (ex: wound, laceration
or bone fracture), while the employee is
performing his official functions
 “In the course of employment”
o Doctrine of Occupational Disease –
disease, sickness or illness to be
compensable must be result of an
occupational disease listed under Annex
“A”
o Theory of Increased Risk – if the
disease, sickness or illness is not listed
in Annex “A”, the claimant, for purposes
of showing its compensability, should
proffer proof that risk of contracting the
disease was increased by his working
conditions
 GR: Off work premises = not compensable
- Law requires that injury that happens outside of
work premises is considered as non-
compensable
 XPN (injury is considered as compensable,
even though outside work premises)
o Going to and Coming From
Workplace Rule – act of employee in
going to or coming from workplace must
be a continuing act (employee has not
diverted by any other activity) and he
had not departed from usual route
o Ingress-Egress or Proximity Rule –
where employee is about to enter or
about to leave premises of employer by
way of exclusive or customary means of
ingress and egress
o Extra-Premises Rule - shuttle bus or
similar vehicle provided by employer to
transport employees in going to and
coming from place of work is considered
an extension of work premises
o Special Errand Rule – injury sustained
on errand beyond office hours, within or
without the premises of employer is
compensable (applies also to activities
authorized by employer such as
intramurals, ball games, golf games,
field trips, picnics)
o 24-Hour Duty Rule – applies only to
uniformed personnel. The concept of
workplace cannot always be literally
applied to a soldier on active status
who, for all intents and purposes, is on a
24-hour official duty status, subject to
military discipline and law and call of his
superior officers at all time, except when
he is on vacation leave status.
No Compensation to Injury
 No compensation shall be allowed to employee
or his dependents when injury, sickness,
disability or death was occasioned by any of the
following
o Intoxication
o Willful intention to injure/kill himself or
another
o Notorious negligence
Prescriptive Period
 3 years from time the cause of action accrued,
that is, from the time of the occurrence of the
contingency
Portability Law (RA 7699)
Limited Portability
 A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old
age and other benefits by reason of non-
fulfillment of the required period of service may
be able to qualify for such benefits by making
use of the period during which he rendered
services to a private employer and for which
contributions were paid to SSS, or vice-versa.
This is allowed under RA 7699 by virtue of
portability
 Justices and judges cannot avail of portability
scheme because their retirement is covered by
special laws
 Refers to transfer of funds for benefit and
account of a worker who transfers from one
system to the other through totalization
Totalization
 Refers to the process of adding up the periods
of creditable services or contribution in each of
the Systems for purposes of eligibility and
computation of benefits, for purposes of
totalization, overlapping periods of membership
shall be considered once only
 Resorted to when retiree does not qualify for
benefits in either or both of the Systems. If a
person is qualified to receive benefits granted
by one, then this principle does not apply
Exam: 50% case law; 50% MCQ – Objective (10
items) Schoology
RA 11199 – Social Security Law
Social Legislation – improvement of social
conditions
Social Security Act
It is the policy of the Republic of the Philippines to
establish, develop, promote and perfect a sound
and viable tax-exempt social security service
suitable to the needs of the people throughout the
Philippines which shall promote social justice and
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. Towards this end, the State shall
endeavor to extend social security protection to
workers and their beneficiaries.
Jurisdiction (Sec. 5)
Any dispute arising under RA 8282 with respect to
coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties
thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be
cognizable by the Commission, and any case filed
with respect thereto shall be heard by the
Commission, or any of its members, or by hearing
officers duly authorized by the Commission and
decided within twenty (20) days after the
submission of the evidence. The filing,
determination and settlement of disputes shall be
governed by the rules and regulations promulgated
by the Commission.
Jurisdiction and 2016 Rules of Procedure of SSC (Sec.
5)
1. SSS v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of
Manila, Inc., et al.,
● The law clearly vests upon the Commission
jurisdiction over "disputes arising under this Act
with respect to coverage, benefits, contributions
and penalties thereon or any matter related
thereto..."
● Dispute is defined as "a conflict or controversy”;
From the allegations of the respondent’s
complaint, it readily appears that there is no
longer any dispute with respect to respondents’
accountability to the SSS.
2. Republic of the Philippines, rep. by SSC, et al. v.
Asiapro Cooperative
● The SSC's jurisdiction is clearly stated in
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8282 as well as in
Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revised
Rules of Procedure.
● Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8282 provides:
SEC. 5. Settlement of Disputes. — (a) Any
dispute arising under this Act with respect to
coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties
thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall
be cognizable by the Commission.
● Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revised
Rules of Procedure states: Section 1.
Jurisdiction. — Any dispute arising under the
Social Security Act with respect to coverage,
entitlement of benefits, collection and settlement
of contributions and penalties thereon, or any
other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable
by the Commission after the SSS through its
President, Manager or Officer-in-charge of the
Department/Branch/Representative Officer
concerned had first taken action thereon in
writing.
3. Social Security System v. Jarque Vda. De Bailon
● Without a nullified marriage, the subsequent
spouse shall continue to be the rightful
beneficiary of the deceased spouse.
● The Court held that petitioner SSS, while
empowered to settle controversies on coverage
and benefits, have no power to withdraw and
much less to reverse decisions by court of law.
 When it made its own findings on the validity of
one marriage and the invalidity of the other, the
SSC acted as an appellate court.
4. Signey v. SSS, et al.,
Employer (Sec. 8)
Any person, natural or juridical, domestic orforeign,
who carries on in the Philippines any trade,
business, industry, undertaking or activity of any
kind and uses the services of another person who
is under his orders as regards the employment,
except the
Government and any of its political subdivisions,
branches or
instrumentalities, including corporations owned or
controlled by the Government: Provided, That a
self-employed person shall be both employee and
employer at the same time.
5. SSC, et al. v. Alba
● An administrator is considered an employer,
within the purview of Section 8(c) of the Social
Security Act of 1954. As such, an administrator
may be held liable for SS contributions.
● Section 8(c) of the Social Security Act of 1954
defines an employer as "any person, natural or
juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in
the Philippines any trade or business, industry,
undertaking or activity of any kind and uses the
services of another person who is under his
orders as regards the employment."
6. Haveria v. SSS, et al.,
● For compulsory members under RA 1161
(Social Security Act of 1954), both the employer
and employee contribute to the employee's
monthly premium contributions.
● For compulsory members, both the employer
and employee contribute to the employee's
monthly premium contributions. On the other
hand, voluntary members pay for their own
monthly premiums; as such, they are required to
pay twice the amount of the employee's
contribution prescribed in Sec. 19 of RA 1161
Employee
(d) Employee — 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 services, where there is an
employer-employee relationship:
Provided, That a self-employed person shall be
both employee and employer at the same time.
7. SSS v. CA, et al.,
● When a worker possesses some attributes of an
employee and others of an independent
contractor, which make him fall within an
intermediate area, he may be classified under
the category of an employee when the economic
facts of the relations make it more nearly one of
employment than one of independent business
enterprise with respect to the ends sought to be
accomplished.
● In Dy Keh Beng v. International Labor, the Court
ruled that "When a worker possesses some
attributes of an employee and others of an
independent contractor, which make him fall
within an intermediate area, he may be
classified under the category of an employee
when the economic facts of the relations make it
more nearly one of employment than one of
independent business enterprise with respect to
the ends sought to be accomplished."
8. Lazaro v. SSC, et al.,
● The fact that respondent was paid by way of
commission does not preclude the
establishment of an employer-employee
relationship. Neither does it follow that a person
who does not observe normal hours of work
cannot be deemed an employee.
9. Gapayao v. Fulo, et al
● There is no doubt that his activities were
necessary and desirable to Gapayao’s
plantation, making him a regular employee of
the latter. Again, the Compromise Agreement is
the most telling, as it is basically an admission
by Gapayao that Jaime was his employee.
● Despite the contention of Gapayao that Jaime
was a mere pakyaw worker, the Court has ruled
in Legend Hotel Manila v. Realuyo that as long
as the employer has the right to exercise control
and supervision over the performance of duties
by the employee, no matter his employment
type, there exists an employer-employee
relationship
Conclusiveness of judgment (“res judicata”)
When does judgment become final and executory?
In labor cases, appeal is only within 10 days. When
is there an appeal? There is an appeal from LA to
NLRC by virtue of memorandum of appeal aside
from paying the docket fees. There is no appeal
from NLRC to CA.
There are two instances where there can be final
judgment in Labor Court
1. There is decision in LA and there is no appeal
taken within 10days that means LA’s decision is
final and executory
2. If there is an appeal of LA’s decision, NLRC
then will have a decision and it becomes
final and executory. Your proof is certificate of
finality to be issued by the Executive Clerk of
Court of the NLRC.
10. Co v. People
 ● When a fact has been once determined in the
course of a judicial proceeding, and a final
judgment has been rendered in accordance
therewith, it cannot be again litigated between
the same parties without virtually impeaching the
correctness of the former decision, which, from
motives of public policy, the law does not permit
to be done.
11. SSC v. Rizal Poultry & Livestock Association,
Inc.,
● Section 8 (d) of the Social Security Act of 1997
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.
● There is no indication that there is an essential
conceptual difference between the definition of
"employee" under the Labor Code and the
Social Security Act.
● 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.
Compulsory coverage
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a
month is covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
 A household-helper is any person who
renders domestic or household services
exclusively to a household employer such
driver, gardener, cook, governess, and
other similar occupations.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the
standard contract or employment between the
seafarer and the manning agency which, together
with the foreign ship owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government,
international organization or their wholly- owned
instrumentality based in the Philippines, which
entered into an administrative agreement with the
SSS for the coverage of its Filipino workers
12. Chua v, CA, et al.,
● Suffice it to say that regardless of the nature of
their employment, whether it is regular or
project, private respondents are subject to the
compulsory coverage under the SSS Law, their
employment not falling under the exceptions
provided by the law.
● This rule is in accord with the Court’s ruling in
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS to the effect
that all employees, regardless of tenure, would
qualify for compulsory membership in the SSS,
except those classes of employees
contemplated in Section 8(j) of the Social
Security Act.
Benefits
- Covered employees are entitled to a package of
benefits under social security and EC in the
event of death, disability, sickness, maternity,
and old-age
- Self-employed and voluntary members also get
same benefits except those benefits under the
EC program
Dependents and beneficiaries
Primary:
(1) Legitimate dependent spouse until the person
remarries;
(2) dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally
adopted and illegitimate children who are not yet 21
years old.
Secondary: In the absence of primary, dependent
parents.
In their absence, any other person designated by
member in record.
Controlling consideration – the fact that child,
spouse, parent is financially dependent for support
upon employee (PJI v. JEU)
13. Signey v. SSS, et al., G.R. No. 173582, January 28,
2008
● Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits
provided by law should establish his or her right
thereto by substantial evidence. Since petitioner
is disqualified to be a beneficiary and because
the deceased has no legitimate child, it follows
that the dependent illegitimate minor children of
the deceased shall be entitled to the death
benefits as primary beneficiaries.
● The SSS Law is clear that for a minor child to
qualify as a "dependent,” the only requirements
are that he/she must be below 21 years of age,
not married nor gainfully employed.
● In this case, the minor illegitimate children
Ginalyn and Rodelyn were born on 13 April 1996
and 20 April 2000, respectively. Had the
legitimate child of the deceased and Editha
survived and qualified as a dependent under the
SSS Law, Ginalyn and Rodelyn would have
been entitled to a share equivalent to only 50%
of the share of the said legitimate child. Since
the legitimate child of the deceased
predeceased him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the
only qualified primary beneficiaries of the
deceased, are entitled to 100% of the benefits
14. Social Security System, et al. v. De Los Santos,
● However, although respondent was the legal
spouse of the deceased, We find that she is still
 disqualified to be his primary beneficiary under
the SS Law. She fails to fulfill the requirement of
dependency upon her deceased husband
Antonio.
15. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Journal
Employees Union,(coverage of term “legal
dependent” as used in a stipulation in a CBA which
is silent about it)
● the controlling consideration in order that a
person may qualify as the employee's legal
dependent is not the employee’s married status
but the fact that the spouse, child, or parent is
actually dependent for support upon the
employee
● It is clear from these statutory definitions of
dependent that the civil status of the employee
as either married or single is not the controlling
consideration in order that a person may qualify
as the employee's legal dependent. What is
rather decidedly controlling is the fact that the
spouse, child, or parent is actually dependent for
support upon the employee
16. SSC v. Azote,
● Although the SSC is not intrinsically empowered
to determine the validity of marriages, it is
required by Section 4 (b) (7) of R.A. No. 8282 to
examine available statistical and economic data
to ensure that the benefits fall into the rightful
beneficiaries.
Retirement benefits
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
17. Dycaico v. Social Security System, et al.,
● The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in
Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 runs afoul
of the due process clause as it outrightly
deprives the surviving spouses whose
respective marriages to the retired SSS
members were contracted after the latter's
retirement of their survivor's benefits. There is
outright confiscation of benefits due such
surviving spouses without giving them an
opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the
classification of dependent spouses on the basis
of whether their respective marriages to the SSS
member were contracted prior to or after the
latter's retirement for the purpose of entitlement
to survivor's pension does not rest on real and
substantial distinctions.
Death benefits
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or
lump sum paid to the beneficiaries of a deceased
member.
18. SSC, et al. v. Favila,
● A surviving spouse must actually be dependent
on the member spouse for support during the
lifetime of the member including the very
moment of contingency to be entitled to benefits.
Permanent disability benefits
Some total permanent disabilities:
1. Complete loss of sight of both eyes
2. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankles
or wrists
3. Permanent complete paralysis of two
limbs
4. Brain injury resulting to incurable
imbecility or insanity
5. Such cases as determined and approved
by SSS
19. Ortega v. SSC, et al.,
Maternity benefit leave
Maternity Benefit
• It is a daily cash allowance granted to female
member who wasunable to work due to childbirth or
miscarriage. Not necessary that female is legally
married.
• It is equivalent to 100% of member’s average
daily salary credit multiplied by 60 days for
normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for
caesarian section delivery.
Right to institute
Sec. 22 - “The right to institute the necessary action
against the 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.”
20. Lo v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
● An action can only be instituted when the
delinquency was made known to the employee
and not when the obligation to pay the premiums
accrued. The 20-year prescriptive period only
runs from that moment.
Penal clause
Who can file?
(i) Criminal action arising from a violation of the
provisions of this Act may be commenced by the
SSS or the employee concerned either under this
Act or in appropriate cases under the Revised
Penal Code: Provided, That such criminal action
may be filed by the SSS in the city or municipality
where the SSS office is located, if the violation was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction or in
Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.
21. Tan, et al. v. Ballena, et al.,
● In case of violation of the SSS law, the intent of
the offender is immaterial.
● As held by the CA, the claims of good faith and
absence of criminal intent for the petitioners'
acknowledged non-remittance of the
respondents' contributions deserve scant
consideration. The violations charged in this
case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a special
law. As such, it belongs to a class of offenses
known as mala prohibita, where when an act is
illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.
22. Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and
Collection, et al.,
● The liability imposed as contemplated under the
foregoing Section 28(f) of the Social Security
Law does not preclude the liability for the
unremitted amount. Relevant to Section 28(f) is
Section 22 of the same law. Under Section
22(a), every employer is required to deduct and
remit such contributions penalty refers to the 3%
penalty that automatically attaches to the
delayed SSS premium contributions.
23. Mendoza v. People,
● The term "managing head" in Section 28 (f) is
used, in its broadest connotation, not to any
specific organizational or managerial
nomenclature. To heed petitioner's reasoning
would allow unscrupulous businessmen to
conveniently escape liability by the creative
adoption of managerial titles.
24. Kua, et al. v. Sacupayo, et al.,
● Good faith or bad faith is rendered irrelevant,
since the law makes no distinction between an
employer who professes good reasons for
delaying the remittance of premiums and
another who deliberately disregards the legal
duty imposed upon him to make such
remittance. From the moment the remittance of
premiums due is delayed, the penalty
immediately attaches to the delayed premium
payments by force of law
25. Navarra v. People,
● Prompt remittance of SSS contributions is
mandatory. Section 28 (f) of RA 8282 explicitly
provides that "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." It is considered mala prohibita and,
thus, the defenses of good faith and lack of
criminal intent are rendered immaterial.
Applicability of novation
26. SSS v. DOJ, et al.,
● The original relationship between SENCOR and
petitioner is defined by law — RA 1161, as
amended — which requires employers like
SENCOR to make periodic contributions to
petitioner under pain of criminal prosecution. No
amount of agreements between petitioner and
SENCOR can change the nature of their
relationship and the consequence of SENCOR's
non-payment of contributions.
● 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.
● Thus, any payment respondent Martels would
have made to petitioner (and it appears that
pending this petition, 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.
Effect of pendency of rehabilitation proceedings on
criminal action
27. Panlilio, et al. v. RTC-51 of City of Manila, et al.,
● The rehabilitation of SIHI and the settlement of
claims against the corporation is not a legal ground
for the extinction of petitioners’ criminal liabilities.
There is no reason why criminal proceedings should
be suspended during corporate rehabilitation, more
so, since the prime purpose of the criminal action is
to punish the offender in order to deter him and
others from committing the same or similar offense,
to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate
him or, in general, to maintain social order.
Condonation Program (RA No. 9903 and SSC Circular
No. 2010-004, Series of 2010 on IRR of RA No. 9903)
28. H. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc., et al. v. SSC, et al
● Under R.A. No. 9903 and its IRR, an employer who
is delinquent or has not remitted all contributions due
and payable to the SSS may avail of the
condonation program provided that the delinquent
employer will remit the full amount of the unpaid
contributions or would submit a proposal to pay the
delinquent contributions in installment within the six
(6)-month period set by law.
● The Court finds that employers who have paid their
unremitted contributions and already settled their
delinquent contributions as well as their
corresponding penalties before R.A. No. 9903's
effectivity do not have a right to be refunded of the
penalties already paid
RA 8291 – GSIS Act of 1997
Constitutional recognition
 1987 Constitution has given constitutional
recognition to the obligation of the state to
retirees by providing that the state shall from
time to time review to upgrade the pensions and
other benefits due to retirees of both
government and private sector (Art. XVI, Sec. 8)
 Another feature of 1987 Constitution is to the
effect that pensions or gratuities are not
considered as additional, double or indirect
compensation (Art. IX, B, The Civil Service
Commission, Sec. 8, par. 2).
Compulsory membership
 Membership in the GSIS shall be compulsory for all
employees receiving compensation who have not
reached the compulsory retirement age, irrespective
of employment status, except members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police, subject to the condition that they
must settle first their financial obligation with the
GSIS, and contractuals who have no employer and
employee relationship with the agencies they serve.
Coverage (Section 3, excluding members of the AFP
and PNP)
1. People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan
● Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Philippine National Police are expressly
excluded from the coverage of The GSIS Act of
1997, therefore, soldiers and military personnel,
who are incidentally employees of the
government, rely on the administration of the
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits
System (AFP-RSBS) for their retirement,
pension and separation benefits.
● The AFP-RSBS was created by PD No. 361. Its
purpose and functions are akin to those of the
GSIS and the SSS, as in fact it is the system
that manages the retirement and pension funds
of those in the military service. For this
purpose PD No. 361, Sec. 4 provides that the
contribution by military officers and enlisted
personnel to the System shall be compulsory.
● The above considerations indicate that the
character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are
imbued with public interest. As such, we hold
that the same is a government entity and its
funds are in the nature of public funds
Creditable Service
Section 10.
 The computation of service for the purpose of
determining the amount of benefits payable under
this Act shall be from the date of original
appointment/election, including periods of service at
different times under one or more employers, those
performed overseas under the authority of the
Republic of the Philippines, and those that may be
prescribed by the GSIS in coordination with the Civil
Service Commission.
 All service credited for retirement, resignation or
separation for which corresponding benefits have
been awarded under this Act or other laws shall be
excluded in the computation of service in case of
reinstatement in the service of an employer and
subsequent retirement or separation which is
compensable under this Act.
2. Valdez v. GSIS,
● The last paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No.
8291 dictates that for purposes of computation
of government service, only full-time services
with compensation are included:
For the purpose of this section, the term
“service” shall include full time service with
compensation: Provided, That part time and
other services with compensation may be
included under such rules and regulations as
may be prescribed by the GSIS.
● While petitioner invokes the proviso in the
above-quoted provision of law, the GSIS, which
has been given the authority to include part-time
services in the computation, has pointed out that
the services in the MMSU, PHIVIDEC and as
OIC Vice-Governor of Ilocos Norte cannot be
credited because, aside from having been
rendered part-time in said agencies, the said
positions were without compensation as defined
in Section 2 (i) of R.A. No. 8291.
3. GSIS v. Pauig
● Here, the primordial reason why there were no
deductions during those fourteen (14) years was
because Pauig was not yet a GSIS member at
that time. There was thus no legal obligation to
pay the premium as no basis for the remittance
of the same existed. And since only periods of
service where premium payments were actually
made and duly remitted to the GSIS shall be
included in the computation of retirement
benefits, said disputed period of fourteen (14)
years must corollarily be removed from Pauig's
creditable service.
● Therefore, Pauig's casual and temporary service
in the government from February 12, 1964 to
July 18, 1977 must necessarily be excluded
from the creditable period of service for
retirement purposes.
Conditions for entitlement
 A member who retires from the service shall be
entitled to the retirement benefits in paragraph (a) of
Section 13 hereof:
 Provided, That:
(1) he has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of
service;
(2) he is at least sixty (60) years of age at the time of
retirement; and
 (3) he is not receiving a monthly pension benefit
from permanent total disability
Retirement Benefits
 Section13
“(1) the lump sum payment as defined in this Act
payable at the time of retirement plus an old-age
pension benefit equal to the basic monthly pension
payable monthly for life, starting upon expiration of
the five-year (5) guaranteed period covered by the
lump sum; or
 “(2) cash payment equivalent to eighteen (18)
months of his basic monthly pension plus monthly
pension for life payable immediately with no five-
year (5) guarantee.
 Unless the service is extended by appropriate
authorities, retirement shall be compulsory for an
employee at sixty-five (65) years of age with at least
fifteen (15) years of service: Provided, That if he has
less than fifteen (15) years of service, he may be
allowed to continue in the service in accordance with
existing civil service rules and regulations.
Survivorship Benefits
 When a member or pensioner dies, the beneficiaries
shall be entitled to survivorship benefits provided in
Sections 21 and 22 hereunder subject to the
conditions therein provided for. The survivorship
pension shall consist of:
(1) the basic survivorship pension which is fifty
percent (50%) of the basic monthly pension; and
(2) the dependent childrens pension not exceeding
fifty percent (50%) of the basic monthly pension
 For purposes of the survivorship benefits, legitimate
children shall include legally adopted and legitimated
children.
4. GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros
● Under Sec. 18 of PD 1146, the surviving
spouse has no right to survivorship pension
if the surviving spouse contracted the
marriage with the pensioner within three
years before the pensioner qualified for
pension. Thus, even if the dependent spouse
married the pensioner more than 3 years before
the pensioner’s death, the dependent spouse
would still not receive survivorship pension if the
marriage took place within 3 years before the
pensioner qualified for pension.
● The SC held that Section 18 of PD 1146 is
unconstitutional for violating the due process
clause. The object of the prohibition is vague.
There is no reasonable connection between
means employed and the purpose intended.
The law itself does not provide any reason for
the purpose of such a prohibition. If the reason
is to prevent “deathbed marriages”, the
classification does not rest on substantial
distinctions.
Dependents
 Who are dependents?
 (a)The legitimate spouse dependent for support;
 (b) any legitimate, legitimated and/or legally adopted
child, including any illegitimate child, who is
unmarried, not gainfully employed, who has not
attained the age of majority, or being at the age of
majority but incapacitated and incapable of
self-support due to a mental or physical defect
acquired prior to age of majority; and
 the parent/s dependent upon the member for
support.
5. A.M. No. 10019-Ret. February 22, 2001 (Re:
Application For Survivor's Benefits
Of Ms. Maylenne G. Manlavi, Daughter Of The
Late Ernesto R. Manlavi)
● In order to be entitled to the Survivorship
Benefits under RA 8291, the beneficiary must be
dependent upon the GSIS member or pensioner
for support. Thus, Section 21(b) explicitly
mentions "dependent spouse" and "dependent
children" as those who shall receive survivorship
pension.
● "Dependent" means "one who derives his or her
main support from another. Meaning, relying on,
or subject to, someone else for support; not able
to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform
anything without the will, power, or aid of
someone else."
● While Marilou’s marriage to the late Ernesto
Manlavi had never been dissolved, she
abandoned the family for more than 17 years
until he died and lived with other men. It is
obvious that she was not dependent on her legal
husband for any support, financial or otherwise,
during that entire period. In fact her whereabouts
were unknown to her family.
Disability Benefits
 Any loss or impairment of the normal functions of the
physical or mental faculties of a member, which
reduces or eliminates his capacity to continue with
his current gainful occupation or engage in any other
gainful occupation (IRR, Sec. 1.18)
 Evaluation of disability as a contingency is vested
solely in GSIS ( IRR, Sec. 9.3.1)
 General condition for entitlement is that the disability
was not due to misconduct, notorious negligence,
habitual intoxication or willful intention to kill himself
or another (IRR,Sec. 9.3.2)
Prescriptive Period
 4 years from date of contingency except life &
retirement benefits which do not prescribe.
Recovery of personal contributions

Lledo v. Lledo
 Neither P.D. No. 1146 nor R.A. No. 8291 contains
any provisionspecifically dealing with employees
dismissed for cause and the status of their personal
contributions. Thus, there is no inconsistency
between Section 11 (d) of Commonwealth Act No.
186, as amended, and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1146,
and, subsequently, R.A. No. 8291. The inevitable
conclusion then is that Section 11 (d) of
Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, continues
to govern cases of employees dismissed for cause
and their claims for the return of their personal
contributions.
 Finally, it should be remembered that the GSIS laws
are in the nature of social legislation, to be liberally
construed in favor of the government employees.
The money subject of the instant request consists of
personal contributions made by the employee,
premiums paid in anticipation of benefits expected
upon retirement. The occurrence of a contingency,
i.e., his dismissal from the service prior to reaching
retirement age, should not deprive him of the money
that belongs to him from the outset. To allow
forfeiture of these personal contributions in favor of
the GSIS would condone undue enrichment.
6. Lledo v. Lledo,
● May a government employee, dismissed from
the service for cause, be allowed to recover the
personal contributions he paid to the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)?
● Neither P.D. No. 1146 nor R.A. No. 8291
contains any provision specifically dealing with
employees dismissed for cause and the status
of their personal contributions. Thus, there is no
inconsistency between Section 11 (d) of
Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, and
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1146, and, subsequently,
R.A. No. 8291.
● The inevitable conclusion then is that Section 11
(d) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended,
continues to govern cases of employees
dismissed for cause and their claims for the
return of their personal contributions
● Finally, it should be remembered that the GSIS
laws are in the nature of social legislation, to be
liberally construed in favor of the government
employees. The money subject of the instant
request consists of personal contributions made
by the employee, premiums paid in anticipation
of benefits expected upon retirement. The
occurrence of a contingency, i.e., his dismissal
from the service prior to reaching retirement
age, should not deprive him of the money that
belongs to him from the outset. To allow
forfeiture of these personal contributions in favor
of the GSIS would condone undue enrichment.
Tax Exemption
 Basis: Section 39 RA 8291
a. Funds
b. Properties
c. Money
*These are exempt from taxes, execution,
attachment and levy.
7. Rubia v. GSIS
● Exemption of GSIS from execution does not
cover refund of amortization payment
● “GSIS cannot claim a special immunity from
liability in regard to its business ventures under
said Section. Nor can it deny contracting parties
the right of redress and the enforcement of a
claim, particularly as it arises from a purely
contractual relationship, of a private character
between an individual and the GSIS.”
8. The City of Davao, et al. v. The Regional Trial
Court, Branch XII, Davao City, et al.,
● There is no doubt that the GSIS which was
established way back in 1937 is a GOCC, a fact that
GSIS itself admits in its petition for certiorari before
the RTC. It is thus clear that Section 1 of P.D. No.
1931 expressly withdrew those exemptions granted
to the GSIS. Presidential Decree No. 1931 did allow
the exemption to be restored in special cases
through an application for restoration with the
Secretary of Finance, but otherwise, the exemptions
granted to the GSIS prior to the enactment of P.D.
No. 1931 were withdrawn.
● However, P.D. No. 1981 did not stop there, serving
merely as it should to restore the previous
exemptions on the GSIS. It also attempted to
proscribe future attempts to alter the tax-exempt
status of the GSIS by imposing unorthodox
conditions for its future repeal.
● The Court, in Mactan, was asked to consider the
effect of the Local Government Code on the
taxability by local governments of GOCCs such as
the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA). However, the Court, in ruling MCIAA non-
exempt from realty taxes, considered that Section
133 qualified the exemption of the National
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities from
local taxation with the phrase "unless otherwise
provided herein."
● However, is an essential difference between the
situation of the MCIAA (and most other GOCCs, for
that matter) and that of the GSIS. Unlike most other
GOCCs, there is a statutory provision — Section 33
of P.D. No. 1146, as amended — which imposes
conditions on the subsequent withdrawal of the
GSIS's tax exemptions.
● The GSIS's tax-exempt status, in sum, was
withdrawn in 1992 by the Local Government Code
but restored by the Government Service Insurance
System Act of 1997, the operative provision of which
is Section 39. The subject real property taxes for the
years 1992 to 1994 were assessed against GSIS
while the Local Government Code provisions
prevailed and, thus, may be collected by the City of
Davao.
9. GSIS v. City Treasurer of Manila, et al.
● Under RA 8291, the full tax exemption privilege of
GSIS was restored. These exemptions shall
continue unless expressly and specifically revoked
and any assessment against the GSIS as of the
approval of this Act are hereby considered paid.
Consequently, all laws, ordinances, regulations,
issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrary to or in
derogation of this provision are hereby deemed
repealed, superseded and rendered ineffective and
without legal force and effect.
● Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by
subsequent laws to the contrary unless this section
is expressly, specifically and categorically revoked
or repealed by law
10. GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero
● Viewed from this perspective, the claim of a
legislative grant of exemption from the payment of
legal fees under Section 39 of RA 8291 necessarily
fails; Congress could not have carved out an
exemption for the GSIS from the payment of legal
fees without transgressing another equally important
institutional safeguard of the Court's independence
— fiscal autonomy.
11. Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of
the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees, February
11, 2010
● The GSIS cannot successfully invoke the right to
social security of government employees in
support of its petition. It is a corporate entity
whose personality is separate and distinct from
that of its individual members. The rights of its
members are not its rights; its rights, powers and
functions pertain to it solely and are not shared
by its members. Its capacity to sue and bring
actions under Section 41 (g) of RA 8291, the
specific power which involves the exemption that
it claims in this case, pertains to it and not to its
members. However, the alleged right of the
GSIS does not exist. The payment of legal fees
does not take away the capacity of the GSIS to
sue. It simply operates as a means by which that
capacity may be implemented. Since the
payment of legal fees is a vital component of the
rules promulgated by this Court concerning
pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot be
validly annulled, changed or modified by
Congress.
12. GSIS v. NLRC, et al.
● The Court held that as an indirect employer,
GSIS is liable to the terminated employees for
wage differentials, thirteenth month pay, and
unpaid wages. The determination of an indirect
employer and its liabilities are found in the Labor
Code. Articles 107, 106, and 109. Clearly, the
provisions above lay down the solidary liability of
GSIS.
● As for the main issue, on whether GSIS can be
made liable, the Court held that the declared
policy of the State in Section 39 of the GSIS
Charter granting GSIS an exemption from tax,
lien, attachment, levy, execution, and other legal
processes should be read together with the
grant of power to the GSIS to invest its "excess
funds" under Section 36 of the same Act. Under
Section 36, the GSIS is granted the ancillary
power to invest in business and other ventures
for the benefit of the employees, by using its
excess funds for investment purposes. In the
exercise of such function and power, the GSIS is
allowed to assume a character similar to a
private corporation. Thus, it may sue and be
sued, as also, explicitly granted by its charter
Appeal and motion for reconsideration
 Sec. 31. Appeals. - Appeals from any decision or
award of the Board shall be governed by Rules 43
and 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure adopted
by the Supreme Court on April 8, 1997 which will
take effect on July 1, 1997: Provided, That pending
cases and those filed prior to July 1, 1997 shall be
governed by the applicable rules of
procedure: Provided, further, That the appeal shall
take precedence over all other cases except criminal
cases when the penalty of life imprisonment or death
or reclusion perpetua is imposable.
 The appeal shall not stay the execution of the order
or award unless ordered by the Board, by the Court
of Appeals or by the Supreme Court and the appeal
shall be without prejudice to the special civil action of
certiorari when proper.
Interpretation and retirements benefits
13. GSIS v. COA
● It is clear from the last paragraph of Sec. 39, RA
8291 that COA disallowances cannot be
deducted from benefits under RA 8291, as the
same are explicitly made exempt by law from
such deductions. That retirement pay accruing
to a public officer may not be withheld and
applied to his indebtedness to the government
has been settled in several cases. The only
exception to such pecuniary accountability is
when the same is in favor of the GSIS.
● In brief, the general policy is to exempt benefits
from all legal processes or liens, but not from
outstanding obligations of the member to the
System. This is to ensure maintenance of the
GSIS' fund reserves in order to guarantee
fulfillment of all its obligations under RA 8291.
● While the GSIS cannot directly proceed against
respondents' retirement benefits, it can
nonetheless seek restoration of the amounts by
means of a proper court action for its recovery.
However, again, any judgment rendered therein
cannot be enforced against retirement benefits
due to the exemption provided in Section 39 of
RA 8291. Therefore, such final monetary
judgment can be enforced against the
respondents' other assets and properties. This is
only fair and consistent with basic principles of
due process.
14. Santos v. Committee on Claims Settlement, et
al.,
● Pursuant to the rule on prospectivity of laws,
employees who have previously retired under
CA 186 and were reinstated after the effectivity
of the new law are already covered by the new
law, not because they are deemed new or
original employees, but by mere prospective
operation of the new law in force at the time they
reentered the service.
● In other words, government employees who are
in the service at the time of the effectivity of P.D.
1146 have the option to retire under CA 186 or
P.D. 1146 and if said option is exercised, they
may change the mode of retirement chosen or
opted within one year from date of retirement.
Once the retired employees are however re-
employed, they shall subsequently retire only
under P.D. 1146.
● As a re-employed member of the government
service who is retiring during the effectivity of RA
8291, petitioner cannot have his previous
government service with the DAR credited in the
computation of his retirement benefit. Neither
can he choose a mode of retirement except that
provided under R.A. 8291.
15. GSIS v. De Leon
● Respondent's disqualification from receiving
retirement benefits under R.A. 910 does not
mean that he is disqualified from receiving any
retirement benefit under any other existing
retirement law. The CA, however, incorrectly
held that respondent was covered by R.A. No.
8291. R.A. No. 8291 became a law after
respondent retired from government service
● Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291, retiring
government employees who were not entitled to
the benefits under R.A. No. 910 had the option
to retire under either of two laws: CA No. 186, as
amended by R.A. No. 660, or P.D. No. 1146. In
his Comment, respondent implicitly indicated his
preference to retire under P.D. No. 1146, since
this law provides for higher benefits, and
because the same was the latest law at the time
of his retirement in 1992. Respondent had
complied with requirements under Sec. 11, PD
1146 at the time of his retirement.
● To grant respondent these benefits does not
equate to double retirement, as GSIS mistakenly
claims. Since respondent has been declared
ineligible to retire under R.A. No. 910, GSIS
should simply apply the proper retirement law to
respondent's claim, in substitution of R.A. No.
910
● Since the change in circumstances was through
no fault of respondent, he cannot be prejudiced
by the same. His right to receive monthly
pension from the government cannot be
jeopardized by a new interpretation of the law.
16. GSIS v. Court of Appeals-Cebu City, et al.
● The reason for providing retirement benefits is to
compensate for service to the government.
Retirement benefits to government employees
are part of the emolument to encourage and
retain qualified employees in the government
service. These benefits are meant to reward
them for giving the best years of their lives in the
service of their country. However, the right to
retirement benefits accrues only when the
requisites are present: (1) conditions imposed
by the applicable law are fulfilled; and (2)
there must be actual retirement, since prior
to actual retirement a person is only eligible,
not entitled, to said benefits.
● In this case, since severance of employment is a
condition sine qua non for the entitlement and
release of retirement benefits, Demonteverde’s
entitlement only accrued when she actually
retired in February 2011. The retirement benefits
under the law are not meant to recompense
employees who are still under the employ of the
government; it is a reward for those who have
served the government for a long time, and have
finally ceased from doing so.
17. CSC v. Moralde
● It is clear that COA disallowances cannot be
deducted from benefits under RA 8291, as the
same are explicitly made exempt by law from
such deductions. Retirement benefits cannot be
diminished by COA disallowances in view of the
clear mandate of Section 39 of RA 8291.
● The policy of exempting retirement benefits from
attachment, levy and execution, as well as
unwarranted deductions, has been embodied in
a long line of retirement statutes such as: Act
No. 4051, CA No. 186, PD No. 1146, and RA
8291.
Disciplining authority
18. Garcia v. Molina, et al.,
● The formal Memoranda separately issued to the
respondents are the formal charges against them
and these formal charges are done without
preliminary or fact finding investigation. Petitioners
claimed that preliminary investigations are not
required in indictments in flagranti as in this case.
This was opposed by the Supreme Court.
● Indeed, the CSC Rules does not specifically provide
that a formal charge without the requisite preliminary
investigation is null and void. However, as clearly
outlined above, upon receipt of a complaint which is
sufficient in form and substance, the disciplining
 authority shall require the person complained of to
submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath
within three days from receipt. Which means that
this should be done prior to the issuance of a formal
charge and the comment required is different from
the Answer that the respondents may file.
● The rule is the same in quasi judicial and
administrative proceedings wherein if there is
violation of basic constitutional rights – which
includes right to due process – courts are ousted
from their jurisdiction and any decision shall be
rendered VOID.
Miscellaneous
19. GSIS, et al. v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa
sa GSIS
● Any collective activity undertaken by
government employees with the intent of
effecting work stoppage or service disruption in
order to realize their demands or force
concessions, economic or otherwise, is a
prohibited concerted mass action and doubtless
actionable administratively.
● The assailed decision and resolution, if allowed
to remain undisturbed, would likely pave the way
to the legitimization of mass actions undertaken
by civil servants, regardless of their deleterious
effects on the interest of the public they have
sworn to serve with loyalty and efficiency. Worse
still, it would permit the emergence of a system
where public sector workers are, as the
petitioners aptly put it, "immune from the
minimum reckoning for acts that [under settled
jurisprudence] are concededly unlawful." This
aberration would be intolerable.
RA 7699 – Portability Law
Limited Portability
 A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old age
and other benefits by reason of non-fulfillment of the
required period of service may be able to qualify for
such benefits by making use of the period during
which he rendered services to a private employer
and for which contributions were paid to SSS, or
vice-versa. This is allowed under RA 7699 by virtue
of portability
 Justices and judges cannot avail of portability
scheme because their retirement is covered by
special laws
 Refers to transfer of funds for benefit and account of
a worker who transfers from one system to the other
through totalization
Totalization
 Refers to the process of adding up the periods of
creditable services or contribution in each of the
Systems for purposes of eligibility and computation
of benefits, for purposes of totalization, overlapping
periods of membership shall be considered once
only
 Resorted to when retiree does not qualify for
benefits in either or both of the Systems. If a person
is qualified to receive benefits granted by one, then
this principle does not apply
PD 626 – Employees’ Compensation and
State Insurance Fund
ECC Law (Workmens Compensation Act)
- Presumption of compensability
- Art. 180 – Jurisdiction of ECC
Separate from SSS Law
 Program provided for in Art. 172-215 of the Labor
Code where a fund (State Insurance Fund) is
established through premium payments exacted
from employers and from which employees and
their dependents in the event of work-connected
disability or death, may promptly secure adequate
income benefit, and medical or related benefits
Payment from employer alone
 Established through premium payments exacted
from employers
Work-Injury Nexus
 In the event of work-connected disability or death
Requisite for Compensation
 Coverage + Compensable Injury
1. Coverage
 All employers, regardless of nature
(natural/juridical; private/public)
 All employees who are: not over 60 or over 60 but
had been paying contributions to either SSS or
GSIS, are covered by ECC
2. Compensable Injury
 Any harmful change in the human organism from
any accident arising out of and in the course of
employment (ex: wound, laceration or bone
fracture), while the employee is performing his
official functions
 “In the course of employment”
o Doctrine of Occupational Disease –
disease, sickness or illness to be
compensable must be result of an
occupational disease listed under Annex “A”
o Theory of Increased Risk – if the disease,
sickness or illness is not listed in Annex “A”,
the claimant, for purposes of showing its
compensability, should proffer proof that risk
of contracting the disease was increased by
his working conditions
 GR: Off work premises = not compensable
- Law requires that injury that happens outside of work
premises is considered as non-compensable
 XPN (injury is considered as compensable, even
though outside work premises)
o Going to and Coming From Workplace
Rule – act of employee in going to or
coming from workplace must be a continuing
act (employee has not diverted by any other
activity) and he had not departed from usual
route
o Ingress-Egress or Proximity Rule – where
employee is about to enter or about to leave
premises of employer by way of exclusive or
customary means of ingress and egress
o Extra-Premises Rule - shuttle bus or
similar vehicle provided by employer to
transport employees in going to and coming
from place of work is considered an
extension of work premises
o Special Errand Rule – injury sustained on
errand beyond office hours, within or without
the premises of employer is compensable
(applies also to activities authorized by
employer such as intramurals, ball games,
golf games, field trips, picnics)
o 24-Hour Duty Rule – applies only to
uniformed personnel. The concept of
workplace cannot always be literally applied
to a soldier on active status who, for all
intents and purposes, is on a 24-hour official
duty status, subject to military discipline and
law and call of his superior officers at all
time, except when he is on vacation leave
status.
No Compensation to Injury
 No compensation shall be allowed to employee or
his dependents when injury, sickness, disability or
death was occasioned by any of the following
o Intoxication
o Willful intention to injure/kill himself or
another
o Notorious negligence
Prescriptive Period
 3 years from time the cause of action accrued, that
is, from the time of the occurrence of the
contingency
Who are covered and when coverage takes effect
Bartolome v. SSS, et al., G.R. No. 192531, November
12, 2014
 Are the biological parents of the covered, but
legally adopted, employee considered
secondary beneficiaries and, thus, entitled, in
appropriate cases, to receive the benefits under
the ECP?
 In the same vein, the term "parents" in the
phrase "dependent parents" in the afore-quoted
Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and
ought to be taken in its general sense and
cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate parents"
as what the ECC did. The phrase "dependent
parents" should, therefore, include all parents,
whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by
nature or by adoption. When the law does not
distinguish, one should not distinguish.
 Plainly, "dependent parents" are parents,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by
adoption, who are in need of support or
assistance.
Benefits
Compensability
Ovenson v. ECC, et al., G.R. No. L-65216, December
1, 1987 (Laborer of CBP – cancer of rectum)
Nemaria v. ECC, et al., G.R. No. L-57889, Oct. 28,
1987 (Teacher – cancer - duty to prove does not exist)
Alano v. ECC, G.R. No. L-48594, March 16, 1988
(Government Employee – accident going to place of
work)
 The deceased was waiting for a bus to the school
where she works as a principal. However, while
waiting, she was bumped by a mini van that resulted
to her death. The petitioner alleges that the
deceased's accident has "arisen out of or in the
course of her employment." The respondent
Commission reiterates its views and contends that
the present provision of law on employment injury is
different from that provided in the old Workmen's
Compensation Act (Act 3428) and is "categorical in
that the injury must have been sustained at work
while at the workplace, or elsewhere while executing
an order from the employer."
 We rule in favor of the petitioner. It is not disputed
that thedeceased died while going to her place of
work. She was at the place where, as the petitioner
puts it, her job necessarily required her to be if she
was to reach her place of work on time. There was
nothing private or personal about the school
principal's being at the place of the accident. She
was there because her employment required her to
be there.
Garol v. ECC, et al., G.R. No. 55233, November 29,
1988 (Midwife – liver cirrhosis; lack of sufficient credible
evidence)
GSIS v. Gabriel, G.R. No. 130379, June 21, 1999
(Prosecutor; incidence of a listed occupational disease,
whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment, is
enough basis for requiring compensation)
Valeriano v. ECC, G.R. No. 136200, June 8, 2000
(Firetruck Driver; 24-hour-dutydoctrine)
 The Court ruled that petitioner's injuries and
consequent disability were not work-connected and
thus not compensable. Petitioner was not able to
 demonstrate solidly how his job as a firetruck driver
was related to the injuries he had suffered. That he
sustained the injuries after pursuing a purely
personal and social function — having dinner with
some friends — is clear from the records of the
case. His injuries were not acquired at his work
place; nor were they sustained while he was
performing an act within the scope of his
employment or in pursuit of an order of his superior.
 The Court also ruled that the 24-hour-duty doctrine
cannot be applied to petitioner's case, because he
was neither at his assigned work place nor in pursuit
of the orders of his superiors when he met an
accident. But the more important justification for the
Court's stance is that he was not doing an act
within his duty and authority as a firetruck
driver, or any other act of such nature, at the time
he sustained his injuries.
Salalima v. ECC, G.R. No. 146360, May 20, 2004
(Helper/Salesman – Cancer of the lungs –consideration
of medical history)
GSIS v. Cuanang, G.R. No. 158846, June 3, 2004
(Teacher - Myocardial Infarction; claim cannot be
defeated by retirement; substantial evidence)
 In the instant case, the wife of the respondent died a
year after her retirement. Clearly, the period
between her retirement and demise was less than
one year. Indeed, if a death which occurred almost
four and one half years after retirement was held to
be within the coverage of the death benefits under
PD 626, as in the Manuzon case, with more reason
should a death which occurred within one year after
retirement be considered as covered under the
same law. A claim for benefit for such death cannot
be defeated by the mere fact of separation from
service.
 Further, we agree with the pronouncements of the
Court of Appeals that there was substantial evidence
to support respondent's claim. Hence, the degree of
proof required under PD 626 was satisfied, i.e.,
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the
test of proof in compensation proceedings.
 In the case at bar, the requisite substantial evidence
came from the expert opinion of Dr. Arsenio A.
Estreras Jr., a Diplomate in Internal Medicine who
issued the Death Certificate.
Jacang v. ECC, G.R. No. 151893, October 20, 2005
(Janitor/Factory Worker - "Takayasu's Disease"
associated with PTB)
Bunao v. SSS, G.R. No. 159606, December 13, 2005
(Marine Engineer - renal cell cancer; bare allegations
and vague excerpts on cancer)
Barrios v. ECC, et al., G.R. No. 148089, March 24,
2006 (driver - diabetes mellitus
complicated by end stage renal disease)
Castor-Garupa v. ECC, G.R. No. 158268, April 12,
2006 (practicing doctor - End Stage Renal Disease
secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis)
Aquino v. SSS, G.R. No. 149256, July 21, 2006
(grocery man - congestive heart failure; claimant to
prove and lapse of time)
 Congestive heart failure is not included in the list
of occupational diseases Under the Rules on
Employees Compensation. Hence, petitioner should
have shown proof that the working conditions where
her husband worked aggravated the risk of
contracting the ailment; adduced evidence of a
reasonable connection between the work of her
deceased husband and the cause of his death, or
that the progression of the disease was brought
about largely by the conditions in her husbands job
as grocery man at the commissary store.
 In addition, granting petitioners claim will set a bad
precedent considering that 23 years elapsed from
the time her husband stopped working at the
commissary store up to the time he died. The 23-
year gap between his separation from employment
in 1977 and his death in 2000 was a gaping hole in
petitioners claim.
 While it is true that PD 626 operates on the principle
of social justice, sympathy for the workers should
also be placed in a sensible equilibrium with the
stability of the ECC trust fund.
GSIS v. Villamayor, G.R. No. 154386, August 22, 2006
(teacher – breast cancer; link between working
conditions and ailment)
GSIS v. Fontanares, G.R. No. 149571, February 21,
2007 (Archivist - Rheumatic Heart Disease and
Pulmonary Tuberculosis Minimal; entitlement to
compensation; principles and policies)
GSIS v. Villareal, G.R. No. 170743, April 12, 2007
(TESDA Supervisor - myocardial
infarction; entitlement by beneficiaries of death benefits)
GSIS v. Mecayer, G.R. No. 156182, April 13, 2007
(PNP – shot to death; workconnected and limitation)
GSIS v. Ibarra, G.R. No. 172925, October 19, 2007
(DBP aide, attorney and division chief - hypertension
and his retinal detachment; burden of proof)
Leviste v. SSS , G.R. No. 159060, November 28, 2007
(Supervisor of Solid Mills -
cardio-vascular diseases; degree of proof)
GSIS v. CA, G.R. No. 124208, January 28, 2008 (PNP –
Osteosarcoma; impossible evidence)
 In this case, Osteosarcoma is not listed as an
occupational disease in the Amended Rules on
Employees' Compensation. Hence, it is supposed to
be upon the claimant or private respondents to prove
by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting
 Osteosarcoma was increased by the working
conditions of the late Abraham.
 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. The records show that
Abraham failed to present evidence to establish that
the development of his ailment was traceable to his
working conditions in the Philippine Navy, the now
defunct Philippine Constabulary and the PNP.
Further, private respondents' allegation in their
petition for review with the CA that Abraham, as a
rifleman in the Philippine Navy, may have been
exposed to elements like a virus which could have
contributed to his ailment does not satisfy the
requirement of substantial evidence. The rule is that
awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations
and presumptions as the claimant must prove a
positive thing. The application of the rules would
mean that absent any proof that the risk of
contracting the ailment was increased by the
working conditions of the late Abraham, private
respondents would not be entitled to compensation.
 Considering, however, that it is practically
undisputed that under the present state of science,
the proof referred by the law to be presented by the
deceased private respondent claimant was
unavailable and impossible to comply with, the
condition must be deemed as not imposed. Before
the amendment, the law simply did not allow
compensation for the ailment of respondent. It is
under this set-up that the Raro case was decided.
However, as the ECC decision noted, the law was
amended and now "the present law on
compensation allows certain diseases to be
compensable if it is sufficiently proven that the
risk of contracting is increased by the working
conditions." It,therefore, now allows compensation
subject to requirement of proving by sufficient
evidence that the risk of contracting the ailment is
increased by the working conditions.
 As earlier noted, however, in the specific case of
respondent, the requirement is impossible to comply
with, given the present state of scientific knowledge.
The obligation to present such as an impossible
evidence must, therefore, be deemed void.
Respondent, therefore, is entitled to compensation,
consistent with the social legislation's intended
beneficial purpose
GSIS v. Cuntapay, G.R. No. 168862, April 30, 2008
(DPWH Draftsman - Myocardial
infarction/heart attack; proof of compensability)
GSIS v. Angel, G.R. No. 166863, July 20, 2011 (Military
Sergeant - alleged murder visà- vis the apparent suicide;
what is “accident”?)
 With the law upon the facts, we conclude that the
death of Sgt. Angel did not result from an accident
which is compensable under Presidential Decree
No. 626. It was on the contrary occasioned by an
intentional or designed act which removes the
resulting death from the coverage of the State
Insurance Fund. It is unexpected that the discussion
below by the GSIS, the ECC and the Court of
Appeals, veered away from the indispensible
antecedent that the death must be caused by
accident and, instead, focused on the requirement
that the death must arise out of or in the course of
employment.
 Such that, the ECC denied compensability because:
Clearly the deceased was not performing his official
duties at the time of the incident. On the contrary, he
was being investigated regarding his alleged
involvement on a pilferage/gunrunning case when he
was found dead in his cell, an activity which is
foreign and unrelated to his employment as a
soldier.
 Thus, the protective mantle of the law cannot be
extended to him as the documents appear bereft of
any showing to justify causal connection between his
death and his employment.
GSIS v. Besitan, G.R. No. 178901, November 23, 2011
(BSP Bank examiner/officer - End Stage Renal Disease
secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis; test of proof is
probability, not absolute certainty)
Lorenzo v. GSIS, et al., G.R. No. 188385, October 2,
2013 (Teacher – Cardiorespiratory Arrest Secondary to
Terminal Leukemia; definition of sickness, applicability of
principles of "presumption of compensability" and
"aggravation"; social security principle - introduction of
"proof of increased risk”)
 The wife of the deceased died due to Cardio-
Respiratory Arrest due to Terminal Leukemia.
Petitioner, being the surviving spouse, claimed for
Employees Compensation death benefits from the
GSIS. It was denied on the ground that the GSIS
Medical Evaluation and Underwriting Department
(MEUD) found Rosario's ailments and cause of
death, Cardio-respiratory Arrest Secondary to
Terminal Leukemia, a non-occupational diseases
contemplated under P.D. No. 626, as amended.
Sickness, as defined under Article 167 (1) Chapter I,
Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code of the Philippines
refers to "any illness definitely accepted as an
occupational disease listed by the Employees'
Compensation Commission, or any illness caused
by employment, subject to proof that the risk of
contracting the same is increased by working
conditions.
 It is well to stress that the principles of "presumption
of compensability" and "aggravation" found in the old
Workmen's Compensation Act is expressly
discarded under the present compensation scheme.
As illustrated in the said Raro case, the new
principle being applied is a system based on social
security principle; thus, the introduction of "proof of
increased risk." As further declared therein: The
present system is also administered by social
insurance agencies — the Government Service
Insurance Syatem and Social Security System —
under the Employees Compensation Commission.
The intent was to restore a sensible equilibrium
 between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's GSIS v. Casco, G.R. No. 173430, July 28, 2008
compensation and the employee's right to receive (conversion of PPD benefits to PTD
reparation for work-connected death or disability. benefits)

GSIS v. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 187474, February 6, 2013 Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, G.R.
(sufficient proof of work connection between ailment and No. 210307. February 22, 2017
working conditions) (entitled to PTD benefits)

Esmarialino v. ECC, et al., July 23, 2014 (Security Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc. et al., G.R. No.
Guard – Leukemia; failure to offer evidence) 223035, February 27, 2017
(entitlement to PTD benefits)
GSIS v. Capacite, G.R. No. 199780, September 24,
2014 (DAR employee – no connection between work Prescription
conditions and lung cancer) Obra v. SSS,
 The deceased was a DAR employee who died of  Prescription not to be reckoned when PTB became
lung cancer. The CA justified the compensability of known but from time employee lost his earning
her disease by saying that Elma had been exposed capacity (termination from job due to illness)
to voluminous dusty records and other harmful
substances that aggravated her respiratory Defenses that may be set up against claim
disease. 1. Not work connected or not occupational
 While item 17, Annex "A" of the Amended Rules of 2. Limitations (intoxication, etc..)
Employee's Compensation considers lung cancer to 3. No notice was given to the employer under Art. 212 of
be a compensable occupational disease, it likewise the Labor Code
provides that the employee should be employed as a 4. Prescription
vinyl chloride worker or a plastic worker. In this case,
however, Elma did not work in an environment
involving the manufacture of chlorine or plastic, for
her lung cancer to be considered an occupational
disease. There was, therefore, no basis for the CA to
simply categorize her illness as an occupational
disease without first establishing the nature of
Elma's work. Both the law and the implementing
rules clearly state that the given alternative
conditions must be satisfied for a disease to be
compensable.

GSIS v. De Castro, G.R. No. 185035, July 15, 2009

(PAF - hypertensive cardiovascular disease, etc.);

GSIS v. Calumpiano, G.R. No. 196102, November 26,

2014 (stenographer - hypertension and glaucoma)

Villamor v. ECC, et al., G.R. No. 204422, Nov. 21, 2016

(waiter, etc. – stroke, etc.)

Barsolo v. SSS, G.R. No. 187950, Jan. 11, 2017

(seaman – myocardial infarction)

GSIS v. Esteves, G.R. No. 182297, June 21, 2017

(utility worker in hospital – diabetes)

GSIS v. Tañedo, Jr., G.R. No. 193500, November 20

2017 (BIR records officer – varicosities)

Disability
Austria v. CA, G.R. No. 146636, August 12, 2002 (types
of disability benefits)

Manioso v. GSIS, G.R. No. 148323, April 29, 2005

(entitlement to PTD benefits)

LECTURE NOTES
Nov. 12, 2020 – AGRA LECTURE
· Meaning of Social Legislation
· Difference between Social Legislation and Social
Justice as discussed by the case of Calalang v.
Williams
· Why is the Social Security Act considered social
legislation? It promotes social justice, provides
benefits to the people.
· Membership with SSS as a general rule is mandatory
in order to generate funds.
o Who are covered? Employees of the private
sector, not over 60 years old.
o Are employers included? Why? Yes. They
have obligations under the law.
o Who are employers? What about
employees? SEE DEFINITIONS
o What are the tests to determine their
relationship? Four-fold and economic reality
tests.
o Who pays the contributions? Employer
deducts from employee compensation.
o What is the difference between compulsory
and voluntary coverage? Who are
compulsorily and voluntarily covered? SEE
ENUMERATIONS
· 2 Types of program:
1. Social Security Program
2. Employees' Compensation (EC) Program  Lecture (Dec. 3, 2020)
· Difference between Social Security program and
Employees’ Compensation Program
· What are the benefits under SSS?
· Employment disputes: Can the SSC decide on the E-
ER? Yes, Art 217 of the LC (except claims for ECC,
all other cases fall under jurisdiction of NLRC.
Meaning to say, if you want to question about
existence of EE relationship, you can file with SSC
· Kasambahay Act - Sec 30 - Domestic workers who
have rendered at least one month of service shall be
covered by the SSS…
The premium contributions shall be paid:
1. For kasambahays who receive a monthly wage of
less the 5k - the employer’s contribution and the
domestic worker’s contribution shall be borne solely
by the employer
2. For kasambahays who received a monthly wage of
5k and above - the domestic worker and the
employer shall shoulder their respective contributions
· Independent contractor - NO E-ER but they are still
covered and considered as self-employes (both the
employer and employee)
· Employee who fails to submit the requirements.
- Who is liable?
- Under the law, the employer is still liable bc in the
first place all the requirements should have been
submitted before the employee was hired.
Lecture (Nov. 19)
Compulsory Coverage
 GR: Employer pays for contribution
 XPN: at least P5000 and above, then
proportionate sharing of contribution
 Importance: there is criminal liability for failure
to register househelps to SSS as well as failure
of paying contributions
Voluntary Coverage
 Who are covered?
 Spouses who devote full time in household
affairs
 OFWs recruited by foreign based employers
 Employees previously under compulsory
coverage but already separated from
employment, or those without income (may
choose to continue remitting contributions)
 Take note: foreign govt, international
organizations (ex: US embassy, WHO). They
can enter agreement into Philippine government
to include their Filipino employees to register in
SSS

 Compulsory coverage
 Exclusions
 Dependents and beneficiaries (sharing by
dependent children – does not distinguish between
legitimate and illegitimate unlike SSS Law)
 What do you mean by legitimate descendants?
 Benefits – important to compute service of
government employee to know benefits
 Enumerate the benefits under GSIS Law
 Monthly pension – what’s the formula for
computing basic monthly pension? BMP = RAMC x
(2.5% x RCS)
Retirement Benefits
 Eligibility requirements
 2 types of retirement benefits – lump sum of BMP
(60 months) or cash payment of 18 times
 Take note: 5 year lump sum is guaranteed – 1 st
option; if retiree dies early then he will just receive
– 2nd option
Permanent total/partial disability benefits
  Difference between permanent total
permanent partial
 Eligibility requirements
Temporary total/partial disability benefits
 Only temporary total benefits is compensable
Death benefits/ survivorship benefits
 Cash payment – (Sec. 21)
Funeral benefits (Sec. 23)
Next week: discuss on ECC Law, Portability Law;
difference between SSS and GSIS Law
· Coverage
- Who are covered?
- Exceptions
- Difference between casual and contractual in relation
to the GSIS Law
- “Dependents”
- Legitimate and illegitimate children have no
distinction when it comes with the share of benefits
(unlike the SSS law)
Who are the primary and secondary beneficiaries?
As to secondary beneficiaries, who are legitimate
descendants? Nieces, nephews, grandchildren
and
- Cash payment benefit equivalent to 18 times of
the basic monthly pension plus monthly pension
payable for life. (What is the main
consideration? Your health. If the retiree dies
6 months after, he will only receive 24 months
times)
You were in the private sector for 10 years. You were
55 years old when you became legal counsel for the
city for 5 years. Then you were elected as mayor
until you were 65. Are you entitled to retirement
benefits? No, not entitled under the GSIS Law. Less
than 15 years of creditable service. May be entitled
under Civil Service Law.
11. Disability benefits
- What is your understanding?
- Permanent total disability
- Differentiate Permanent Total Disability and
Permanent Partial Disability
- Examples of each
- Requirements for eligibility of this benefit
- If the eligibility requirement has not been met?
- His separation benefit equivalent to 100% of
his average monthly compensation for each year
of service (but not less than 12k) shall be paid in
advance, provided that he has rendered at least
3 years of service at the time of his disability

12. Temporary disability benefits

9. Benefits
- only temporary total benefit is compensable
- Bar from acquiring the sick benefits with other
- important to compute service of government
benefits
employee to know benefits
- Enumerate the benefits under the GSIS Law
- Monthly pension what’s the formula for 13. Death/Survivorship Benefits
computing basic monthly pension? BMP =
RAMC x (2.5% x RCS) - What is this benefit?

- Question: Gov’t employee already retired. He

What is creditable service?
was receiving monthly pension. 5 years after he
Juan was elected as councilor for three terms. He died. Are the beneficiaries entitled to
was later appointed as RD of the DENR for 10 years. survivorship benefits? (see SEC 21)
Then he worked for an NGO for another 10 years.
How many years creditable? Only 19 (three terms + 14. Funeral Benefits (Sec 23)
10 years as RD) - Define

15. Aside from the benefits that we mention,

10. Retirement benefits what other benefits are available:
- Eligibility requirements 1. Separation Benefits
2 Types of retirement benefits 2. Unemployment Benefits
3. Life Insurance
- 5 year lump sum equivalent to 60 months basic
monthly pension. (This option is guaranteed 16. Con-comm and the judiciary are only covered
even if he dies) under the life insurance benefits
Exam: 50% case law; 50% MCQ – Objective (10 items)
Schoology