Socleg Cases

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S.
Social Security System Law

Social Legislation/2C RA 1161
Case Digest Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs SSS
G.R. NO. L-15045, (1961)

FACTS :

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila filed with the Social Security Commission an
exemption request from the Social Security Law of 1954 for the reason that the said act does
not cover religious and charitable institutions but only covers labor law and is only limited to
establishments such as businesses and activities that are subject for profit. The request states
that “Catholic Charities, and all religious and charitable institutions and or organizations, which
are directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Manila” should be exempted from the Social Security Law of 1954. The Social Security System
did not approve the request made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop. The petitioner then
proceeded for reconsideration and recapitulate its argument which was denied again. The
petitioner then filed an appeal. The petitioner contests that the word “employer” as given
meaning by the law should observe “ejusdem generis” and should only refer to undertakings
and activities which carries the element of profit.

ISSUE : W/N the request of the Roman Catholic Archbishop for exemption from the Social
Security Law of 1954 should be approved.

RULING : No, the request for exemption should not be approved. Ejusdem Generis should not
be applied in this case since there is no uncertainty. Furthermore, the Social Security Law aims
to help employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death which a priest
who is an employee can also experience. The funds gathered and handled by the government
is for the promotion of social justice.

DISPOSITION: Social Security Commision’s decisions are hereby affirmed, and costs shall be
ordered against the appellant.

1|Page
Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law
Case Digest CMS Estate, Inc. vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
CMS ESTATE, INC vs SSS

G.R. NO. L-26298 (1984)
FACTS:
The petitioner in this case is a domestic corporation that is organized for the purpose of
engaging in the real estate business. It started doing business with only six employees on
December 1, 1952. On June 4,1956 it’s articles of incorporation was amended in order to
engage in the business of logging. The petitioner then entered a contract of management with
Eufracio D. Rojas for the forest concession operation. On April 1, 1957, the logging operation
started with four monthly salaried employees. As of September 1, 1957. CMS Estate had eighty-
nine employees and laborers in its logging operation. CMS then revokes its contract of
management with Rojas on December 26, 1957.
On August 1, 1958, CMS Estate became a member of the Social Security System pertaining to
its real estate business. CMS Estate remitted an amount of P203 representing the initial
premium on the monthly salaries of the employees in the logging business to the system. On
October 9, 1958, CMS Estate was demanding for a refund on the said amount and is claiming
that it is not yet subjected to compulsory coverage with respect to its logging business. The
Social Security System rejected the request of CMS Estate and stated that the logging business
was CMS Estate’s expansion of its activities and operations and that they should be considered
a member of the system since they commenced their real estate business on December 1,
1952.
The petitioner then filed with the SSC a petition praying for the determination of the date of
effectivity of the compulsory coverage of CMS Estate’s logging business which was denied and
was said to be covered to coverage of the SSA.
ISSUE: Whether or not CMS Estate is subjected to the compulsory coverage of the Social
Security Act.
RULING: Yes, the court held that “All that is required of appellant is to make monthly con-
tributions to the System for covered employees in its employ. These contributions, contrary to
appellant's contention, are not 'in the nature of taxes on employment.' Together with the
contributions imposed upon employees and the Government, they are intended for the pro-
tection of said employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line
with the constitutional mandate to promote social justice to insure the well-being and economic
security of all the people." Section 10 of the act also provides that before and employer could be
compelled to become a member of the System, he must have been in operation for at least two
2|Page
years and has at the time of admission at least six employees. The court also held that, the
employer, either
Case Digest CMS Estate, Inc. vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
natural or juridical persons, who is subject to the compulsory coverage and not the business.
The records in this case showed that the petitioner’s business started on December 1, 1952 and
its logging operation executed on April 1, 1957. With the effect of Section 10 of the act, the
petitioner is subjected to compulsory coverage on the date of December 1, 1952.
DISPOSITON: The appeal was dismissed. With costs against the petitioner.
3|Page
Case Digest SSS vs Aguas
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs Aguas
G.R. NO. 165546 (2006)
FACTS:
Pablo Aguas, who is a member of the SSS and who is also a pensioner, died on December 8,
1996. His surviving spouse, Rosanna Aguas filed with the SSS for claim of death benefits on
December 13, 1996. Rosanna stated in her claim that Pablo has a minor child with her who born
on October 29, 1991 who is named Jeylynn. The monthly pension was then settled on February
13, 1997. On April 1997, SSS received a letter from Pablo’s sister, Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac
and is contesting the claim of Rosanna Aguas’ claim for the death benefits and also stated that
Rosanna abandoned Pablo for more that six years and alleged that Rosanna has lived with
another man who is named Romeo dela Peñ and had children, and also stated that Rosanna
has no legal children with Pablo. Leticia supported her claims by presenting a birth certificate of
certain Romeo dela Peña to Rosanna Hernandez and Romeo dela Peña and that the two are
married.
The SSS then suspended the payment of Rosanna and Jeylnn’s monthly pension. The SSS
conducted an investigation regarding the verification of the allegations of Leticia. The Social
Security Officer reported that the cousin and neighbor of Pablo has no legal children with
Rosanna and that Jenelynn and Jefren are children of Rosanna and Romeo dela Peña. Another
person also said that Pablo is not capable of having a child. Dr. Manuel Macapinlac also said
that Pablo was infertile. Rosanna’s request for the resume of the monthly pension was denied
by the SSS and was adivised to refund the amount of P10,350 within 30 days. Rosanna with her
counsel then filed an action for reconsideration based on the decision which the SSS
subsequently denied.
Rosanna then filed a petition for restoration of payment of pensions with the Social Security
Commision. In their position paper, it was revealed that Jeylnn is a legitimate child of Pablo as
stated in her birth certificate, the signature of Pablo was written as her father. It was also stated
that Rosanna never left Pablo. Included therein to support their claims are the statements of
their neighbors which said that they stayed together until Pablo’s death. As to the claims of Dr.
Macapinlac, it was said that he only treated Pablo for his tuberculosis. Further investigation of
the SSC revealed that Rosanna contracted her marriage with Romeo during the subsistence of
her marriage with Pablo, ordering her to immediately refund to the SSS the amount of P10350.
The SSC ruled that Rosanna is no longer qualified as primary beneficiary of Pablo since she
contracted another marriage during the subsistence of her marriage with Pablo which resulted
to adultery. Rosanna and Jeylynn filed an action for reconsideration which was denied by the
4|Page
SSC. The case then went to the CA. The CA then ruled in favor of the petitioners. SSS then
filed for a reversal of the decision of the appellate court contending that CA committed an error
in declaring that Rosanna and Jeylynn Aguas are entitled for the pension benefits of Pablo
Aguas.

Case Digest SSS vs Aguas
____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: Whether or not Rosanna Aguas and Jeylnn Aguas are entitled for the pension benefits
of Pablo Aguas
RULING: Based on the court’s findings, only Jeylnn is entitled for the pension benefits of Pablo
Aguas. SThe records show that Jeylynn was born during the marriage of Rosanna and Pablo.
As for Rosanna, she is not entitled to be the primary beneficiary anymore. Rosanna failed to
show any evidence that she is still dependent for support from Pablo when they were already
living separately. Rosanna must show that (1) that she is the legitimate spouse (2) she is
dependent upon the member for support. In this case, Rosanna is already separated de facto
from Pablo which cannot be said that she is dependent for support. It is presumed that she can
provide for herself.
DISPOSITION: The petition is partially granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed
with modification. Only Jeylynn Aguas is declared to the SSS death benefits accruing from the
death of Pablo Aguas.
5|Page
Case Digest Bartolome vs. SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
Bartolome vs SSS
G.R. NO. 192531 (2014)
FACTS:
John Colcol was an Electrician employed by Scabmar Maritime Services Inc which is on board
the vessel Maersk Danville. He was also enrolled under the government’s Employees
Compensation Program. An accident occurred on June 2, 2008 on board the vessel wherein
steel plates fell on John which resulted to his death. At the time of his death, John was childless
and is not married. John’s mother, Bernandina Bartolome who is the sole remaining beneficiary
then filed a claim for death benefits under PD 626 with the Social Security System. The SSS
then denied the claim of John’s mother stating that she is not legally qualified anymore for the
benefits since John was already adopted by Cornelio Colcol. Petitioner then appealed to the
ECC but was denied. She then went to the Supreme Court and petitioner claims to be the sole
beneficiary of John. The ECC then contested her claims and said that John was adopted by
Cornelio Colcol when John was four years old.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bernardina Bartolome who is the biological parent of John Colcol considered as
a secondary beneficiary even though he is legally adopted.
RULING:
Yes, the court said that Bernanrdina Bartolome is considered as John’s secondary
Beneficiary.The legislature did not use any modification of legitimate or legitimate therefore, it
includes all parents who are dependents of the member. In this case, Colcol died after he
adopted John. John also indicated Bernardina Bartolome as one of his beneficiaries.
DISPOSITION:
6|Page
The petition is granted. The ECC is directed to release the benefits due to a secondary
beneficiary of the deceased, John Colcol to the petitioner Bernardina Bartolome.

Case Digest SSS vs Davac
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs DAVAC
G.R. NO. L-21642 (1996)
FACTS:
The deceased Petronillo Davac was employed by Lianga Bay Logging Co. Inc and became a
member of the SSS. As a member, he designated Candelaria Davac as his beneficiary and as
his wife. Later on, both the respondents, Candelaria Davac and Lourdes Tuplano filed claims for
benefit with the SSS after the death of Petronillo Davac on April 5, 1959. Based on the files
submitted to the SSS it appeared that Petronillo Davac contracted two marriages. The first
marriage was with Lourdes Tuplano on August 29, 1946 whom he had a child with who is
Romeo Davac. The second marriage was with Candelaria Davac on January 18, 1949 whom he
had a daughter who is a minor, Elizabeth Davac.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Candelaria Davac should be the primary beneficiary of the deceased Petronillo
Davac.
RULING:
Yes, Candelaria Davac should be the primary beneficiary of Petronillo Davac. Section 13 of RA
1161 as amended by Republic Act No. 1792, which is enforced during the death of Petronillo
Davac states that
SEC. 13 Upon the covered employee’s death or total and permanent disability under
such conditions as the Commission may define, before becoming eligible for retirement
and if either such death or disability is not compensable under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, he or, in case of his death, his beneficiaries, as recorded by his
employer shall be entitled to the following benefit.
This provision provides that the beneficiary “as recorded by the employee’s employer is the one
entitled to the death benefits.
Lourdes Tuplano then is contesting the decision made for the reason that Candelaria is a
bigamous wife and it is contrary to the Civil Code and it deprives the lawful wife of her share in
the conjugal property as well as of her own and her child’s legitime in the inheritance. The court
however, stated Candelaria has no knowledge of the first marriage therefore declaring that she
7|Page
is not guilty of concubinage. The court also held that the benefits under the SSS is not part of
the conjugal property. The court used Section 15 of RA 2658 amending RA 1161 in deciding the
case. It states that in the case of death benefits if no beneficiary has been designated or
designation there of is void, said benefits shall be paid to the legal heirs in accordance with the
laws of succession. It implies that when there is no designated beneficiaries or when the
designation is void, the laws of succession are applicable and it is held by the court that the
Social Authority Act is not a law of succession making Candelaria Davac the primary beneficiary
of the death benefits.

Case Digest SSS vs Davac
____________________________________________________________________________
DISPOSITION:
The resolution of the Social Security Commission appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
the appellant.
8|Page
Case Digest SSS vs Delos Santos
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs Delos Santos

G.R. NO. 164790 (2008)
FACTS:
Antonio de los Santos and respondent Gloria de los Santos are both Filipino who were married
in Manila on April 29, 1964. After less than one year, Gloria de los Santos left Antonio and got
married again with Domingo Talens in Nueva Ecija. In 1969 she lived again with Antonio until
1983. Gloria and Antonio had three children named, Alain Vincent, Arlene and Armine.
In the year 1983, Gloria went to the US leaving Antonio. She filed a divorce in the US against
Antionio with the Superior Court of Orange in California. She waived her rights regarding her
conjugal properties and the divorce was executed on November 5, 1986.
Antonio then married Cirila de los Santos on May 23, 1987. They had a child who is May Ann de
los Santos. Gloria then married Larry Thomas Constant, who is a citizen of America on July 11,
1987 in the US.
Antionio changed his records regarding his SSS. He changed his beneficiaries in favor of Cirilia
de los Santos and May-Ann de los Santos and Armine de los Santos. Antonio then retired and
began receiving monthly pensions. Antionio died due to respiratory failure. Cirilia then applied
for death benefits and received monthly payments.
Gloria then filed a claim for the death benefits of Antonio with the SSS but was denied for the
reason that she is not qualified as a beneficiary and that she has remarried in the US and for
her filing a petition for dissolution her marriage with Antonio which was granted in the US. On
appeal to the CA the decision of the SSC was reversed, and she was declared as the primary
beneficiary of Antonio. Thereafter, the CA decision was then reversed.
ISSUE:
W/N Gloria de los Santos is the primary beneficiary of Antonio de los Santos.
RULING:
No, although Gloria is the legal spouse of the deceased for the reason that divorce is not
recognized here in the Philippines. The court still held that she is disqualified to be the primary
9|Page
beneficiary under the Social Security Law. She failed to establish the requirement of
dependency upon Antonio de los Santos. The case of SSS vs Aguas was then laid down in the
case in determining the extent of the required “dependency” under the Social Security law. In
the case of Aguas, the court ruled that although a husband and wife are obliged to support each
other, whether one is dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of
marriage alone. In this case, Gloria was capable for providing for herself and is not dependent
to Antonio, and on the other hand she herself admitted that she left Antonio on different
occasions
Case Digest SSS vs Delos Santos
____________________________________________________________________________
to live with two other men. These led to her removal from qualifying as the primary beneficiary of
Antonio.
DISPOSITION:
The appealed decision was reversed and set aside. The resolution of the Social Security
Commission is reinstated.
10 | P a g e
Case Digest Signey vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
Signey vs SSS
G.R. NO. 173582 (2008)
FACTS:
In this case, Rodolfo Signey Sr. a member of the SSS died on May 21, 2001. In his records, he
designated Yolanda Signey as the primary beneficiary and his four children with her as the
secondary beneficiaries. Yolanda then filed a claim for benefits with the SSS. She revealed in
her claim that Rodolfo had a common law wife who is Gina Servano, whom he had two children
named Ginalyn Servano and Rodelyn Signey. Yolanda’s revelation was then approved when
Gina filed for the same death benefits stating that she is in fact the common law wife of Rodolfo
and that Editha Espinosa was the legal wife. Editha then also filed an application for the death
benefits with the SSS and stated that she is the legal wife of Rodolfo.
The SSS denied the death benefit claim of Yolanda but approved Ginalyn and Rodelyn who are
the minor children of Rodolfo of Gina as the primary beneficiaries. Yolanda then filed a petition
with the SSC a waiver of rights which was executed by Editha waiving any and all claims to
Yolanda and that she is legally married to Mr. Aquillino Castillo and not to Rodolfo.
The SSS field investigation then confirmed that Editha is indeed to be the legal wife of Rodolfo.
Editha then admitted that she is not dependent on Rodolfo for she was living with Aquillino
Castillo. Still, the SSS still denied the Yolanda’s claims and said decision was approved by the
SSC. The petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals which also denied her claims. The case
was then taken to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Yolanda has the better right in claiming the death benefits of Rodolfo over the
illegitimate minor children of Rodolfo.
RULING:
11 | P a g e
No, Section 8. of RA 8282 states that a surviving spouse claiming death benefits as a
dependent must be a legal spouse. In this case, Editha is the legal spouse of Rodolfo. As for the
illegitimate children, the law is clear that for a child to be qualified as dependent, he must be
unmarried, not gainfully employed and must not be 21 years of age or if over 21 years of age,
he is congenitally or white still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of
self-support, physically or mentally. In this case Ginalyn, Rodelyn are the qualified beneficiaries
since they are minors at the time of the death of Rodolfo. Since there is absence of any
legitimate children of the deceased, it follows that the dependent minor children of the deceased
should be entitled to the death Salvador, Joshua Philippe S.
Social Security System Law
Case Digest Signey vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
benefits as primary beneficiaries. In this case, Ginalyn and Rodelyn are entitled to 100 percent
of the death benefits.
DISPOSITION:
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs against
the petitioner.
12 | P a g e
Case Digest SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda. De
Bailon
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda. De Bailon

G.R. NO. 165545 (2006)
FACTS:
Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz contracted their marriage in Bacrelona, Sorsogon on April 25,
1955. After 15 years later, Bailon filed a petition of presumptive regarding Alice. The CFI then
declared that Alice is dead. On August 8, 1983, Clemente Bailon married Teresita Jarque in
Sorsogon. Bailon who, was a member of the SSS since 1960 and a retiree died in July 1994.
Teresita Jarque then filed a claim for funeral benefits which was then granted. On March 11,
1998 she filed an additional claim for death benefits which was granted again. Cecillia Bailon-
Yap who is claiming that she is a daughter of Clemente Bailon and one Elisa Jayona contested
before the SSS to remove Teresita Jarque from the death and funeral benefits. Cecillia then
said that Clemente contracted three marriages during his lifetime. First was with Alice, then her
mother Elisa then Teresita. Cecillia and her sister Norma Bailon Chavez supported her
allegations by submitting an affidavit that they are two of the nine children of Bailon and Elisa
who lived together as husband and wife in the year 1958, and that they have the right to contest
the marriage of Tereista and Clemente and they also stated that Alice is still very much alive.
On April 5, 1999, a certain Hemes P. Diaz who is claiming to be the brother and guardian of
Alice Diaz filed with the SSS a claim for death benefits and stated that it was Norma who paid
for Clemente’s funeral expenses.
Elisa and her children then all filed claims for the death benefits of Clemente. The SSS then
discontinued the death benefits for Teresita. The SSC said that Clemente’s marriage with
Teresita is void since the declaration of Alice’s death was not yet final. Teresita was then
requested to return the monthly pensions she received. Teresita filed a petition against the SSS
before the SSC for the restoration of the monthly pension. She also stated that Norma and her
siblings prevented her from paying for Clemente’s funeral expenses.
13 | P a g e
Alicia P. Diaz then filed an affidavit, stating she is the widow of Clemente. She said that she
never disappeared and said that Clemente could have easily located her since she was only
staying in her parent’s residence in Sorsogon and Bailon used to visit her even though they are
already separated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Teresita should be entitled for the death benefits of Clemente Bailon
RULING:
Case Digest SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda. De
Bailon
____________________________________________________________________________
Yes, Teresita should be entitled for the death benefits of Clemente Bailon, since her marriage
with Clemente Bailon is valid. The court stated that the SSC has no power to review decisions
rendered by the courts of the law. Also, according to Article 83 of the New Civil Code, states
that the second marriage, in order to be declared null and void by reason of reappearance of the
presumptively dead spouse, must be declared null and void by a competent court.
DISPOSITION:
In light of the foregoing discussions, consideration of the other issues raised has been rendered
unnecessary, the petition is denied.
14 | P a g e
Case Digest SSS vs Atlantic Gulf
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila Inc. and Semirara Coal Corp.
G.R. NO. 1759252 (2008)
FACTS:
On February 13, 2004, Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. and Semirara Coal
Corporation filed a complaint against SSS before the RTC for specific performance and
damages. In the year 2000, AG&P was not able to pay consistently its premiums and loan
amortizations which made them delinquent amounting to P7.3 Million. AG&P then said that it
would pay by then end of 2000 and requested for condonation for penalties. AG&P was then
given the option to pay by installment or by dacion en pago. AG&P then selected dacion en
pago as their mode of payment to settle their obligation with the SSS. AG&P first tried to give its
5,9999 sqm property in Baguio with the appraised value of P80 million but was denied by the
SSS. AG&P then offered its 58153 sqm lot in San Pascual Batangas. SSS then informed AG&P
to include SEMIRARA in the proposed settlement throught dacien en pago.
AG&P then was directed by the defendant to submit documents such as the Transfer Certificate
of Title, Tax Declaration which covers the lot and the proposed subdivision plan. The AG&P
immediately complied with it.
The SSS approved AG&P’s and SEMIRARA’s proposal to settle its delinquencies through
dacion en pago, which is now amounting to P29, 261,902.45. AG&P then sent the deed
assignment to SSS. SSS was not able to comply with the Deed of Assignment in order to
execute the transfer. AG&P then submitted to the Vice President a draft, however SSS was not
able to put any action making AG&P to submit again to the Vice President. AG&P has been
then consistently following up to the SSS regarding the to the Deed of Assignment’s status.
After more than a year after approving AG&P’s proposal the amount of obligation to paid by
AG&P amounted from P29,261,902.45 to P40, 846,610.64. The AG&P then requested for a
15 | P a g e
waiver to delete the additional interests because of the delay committed in approving the deed
of assignment. AG&P and Semirara still maintain their aim to settle their P29,261902.45
obligation to SSS but SSS is refusing to accept the payment of Dacion en Pago unless AG&P
and Semirara will pay the additional interests and penalties. The SSS then moved for the
dismissal of the complaint of AG&P saying that the court has no jurisdiction in resolving the
case and it should be the SSC which has the proper jurisdiction over the case. The case then
proceeded to the CA which reversed the decision. The SSS then went up to the higher court
regarding the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a controversy
arising from the non-implementation of a dacion en pogo as agreed upon by the parties as a
mode of payment of the respondent’s liabilities.
Case Digest SSS vs Atlantic Gulf
____________________________________________________________________________
RULING:
No, Sec, 5 of RA 1161 as amended by RA 8282 states that “disputes arising under this Act with
respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any matter related thereto”
In this case, there is no more dispute regarding to the accountability of the AG&P since AG&P
already admitted their delinquency and offered to settle them by dacion en pago as mode of
payment which was approved by the SSS. Where the basic issue is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered actions as cases where
the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by the Regional Trial Courts.
DISPOSITION:
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
16 | P a g e
Case Digest Villarica Pawnshop vs
SSC
____________________________________________________________________________
Villarica Pawnshop, Inc et al. vs Social Security Commission et al.

G.R. NO. 228087 (2018)
FACTS:
Villarica Pawshop is a private corporation engaged in the pawnshop business and is registered
with the Social Security system. In the year 2009, the petitioners paid their delinquent
contributions together with penalties to different branches of the SSS. RA 9903 also known as
the Social Security Condonation Law of 2009 was then enacted by the congress on January 7,
2010 and then took effect on February 1, 2010. This act offered those delinquent employers to
pay their obligations to the to SSS without any penalties attached in their respective
accountabilities within six months from the date of its effectivity.
The president and general manager of Villarica, Atty. Henry Villarica sent separate letters to the
SSS praying for reimbursement of penalties which they paid in the year 2009. Villarica is
alleging that they should be part of the condonation program since they have settled their
unpaid contributions before the the effectivity of the law and that one of the purposes of the law
is to favor employers. Villarica’s request was then denied by the SSS stating that Villarica’s
allegations is not covered by RA 9903.
Villarica then filed a petition to the SSC asking for the reimbursement of the 3% per month
penalties they had paid in 2009. The SSS then moved for the dismissal of the claims of the
petitioner for lack of merit and proceeded to state that Villarica is not covered by RA 9903
because they were not delinquent when the law took effect on 2010 and they have already
settled their obligations before the enactment of the law.
17 | P a g e
The SSC then denied the petitions of Villarica and said that they already finished paying their
unpaid obligations before February 1, 2010. The petitioners then appealed to the CA. The CA
stated that it would be absurd for obligations that have already been extinguished to be
subjected to condonation and denied their appeal. The case then went up to the higher court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 9903 should cover Villarica Pawnshop
RULING:
No. The court finds that employers who have paid their unremitted contributions and already
settled their delinquent contributions as well as their corresponding penalties before RA 9903’s
effectivity do not have a right to be refunded of the penalties already paid.
Case Digest Villarica Pawnshop vs
SSC
____________________________________________________________________________
DISPOSITION:
Petition is denied. Resolution of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
18 | P a g e
Case Digest Tecson vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
SSS vs Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila Inc. and Semirara Coal Corp.
G.R. NO. L-157798 (1961)
FACTS:
Lim Hoc is a former employee of the Yuyitung Publishing Company and is covered by the Social
Security System. He died on November 3, 1957. In his Social Security System form he filed, his
civil status stated that he registered himself as married, but he did not mention any members of
his family or any relatives. He listed the petitioner, Jose P. Tecson as his beneficiary who was
reportedly to be his friend and co-worker. Jose P. Tecson then filed a claim for death benefits
with the system. The SSC then denied the claim of Tecson for the reason that the Social
Security Commission states that the legislative policy underlying the system is to grant and
afford protection to the covered employee as well as his family, and for this reason Tecson filed
for an appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tecson should be entitled to be the beneficiary of Lim Hoc.
RULING:
19 | P a g e
Yes, the Court approved of Tecson, to be qualified as the beneficiary of Lim Hoc. According to
the SSC under its regulations, the following persons may be designated as beneficiaries from
anyone of the persons enumerated therein:
a. Legitimate widow or widower if not legally separated from the deceased.
b. Legitimate or Legitimated children
c. Grandchildren
d. Parents
e. Grandparents
f. Natural Children duly acknowledge
g. Brothers or sisters
h. In the absence of any of the foregoing relatives, any other person designated by the
employee.
However, in this case, Lim Hoc designated Jose P. Tecson as his beneficiary. The employer
must have received no information from Lim Hoc about the existence of his family, their names,
ages, civil status, occupations etc, it was also known that Lim Hoc’s family resides in China. The
court held that if the family of Lim Hoc is dependent upon him, he would have written their
names in the record of the employer. The court also held that the SSS Law is not successional.
The heirs shall
Case Digest Tecson vs SSS
____________________________________________________________________________
only become beneficiaries if the estate of the deceased designated them, and if there is none,
the designation is void. The IRR of RA 1161 also states that in case of absence of the
recommended benefeciaries, the person designated by the member shall be the beneficiary,
therefore making Tecson qualified as the beneficiary of Lim Hoc.
DISPOSITION:
The resolution is set aside and annulled and the System is ordered to pay Jose P. Tecson
monetary claims. Without costs.
20 | P a g e
Case Digest United Christian Missionary Society vs SSC
____________________________________________________________________________
United Christian Missionary vs SSC

G.R. NO. L-26712-16(1969)
FACTS:
Five petitioners, United Christian Missionary Society, United Church Board for World Ministers,
Board of Foreign Mission of the Reformed Church in America, Board of Mission of the
Evangelical United Presbyterian Church, Commission of Ecumenical Mission on Relations of
the United Presbyterian Church, filed separate petitions with the commission contesting the
coverage of the SSS law. The petitioners are contending that as American Missionaries who
perform religious and charitable work in the Philippines, they should not be included in the SSS
law. The five petitioners then filed their consolidated petition praying for condonation for the
penalties against them for the delayed social security remittances amounting to P69,446.42.
The System then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that “The Social Security Commission
has no power or authority to condone penalties for late premium remittance”.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Social Security Council has the power to grant condonation of penalties for
the delinquent employers.
21 | P a g e
RULING:
No, the Social Security Council has no power to grant condonation of penalties for delinquent
employers. When remittance of unpaid premiums is delayed, a penalty attaches to the unpaid
premiums by force of law. Section 4 of the Social Security Act does not enumerate such power
to the Social Security Council in granting condonation of penalties.
DISPOSITION:
The Social Security Commission is affirmed. With costs against appellant.

Case Digest Tan vs Ballena
____________________________________________________________________________
TAN vs Ballena
G.R. NO. 168111 (2008)
FACTS:
Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingo and Robert Lim are officers of a domestic corporation named
Footjoy which is engaged in the business of manufacturing shoes and other footwear before its
termination of operations in February 2001.
Amelito Ballena together with 139 other employees of Footjob filed a joint complaint affidavit in
the office of the provincial prosecutor of Bulacan against the company and Tan and Domingo as
owner and administrative officer.
The complaint stated that the company failed to report the employees for membership in the
SSS and failed to remit their SSS contributions and payments for for their SSS loan, which is
deducted from their wages. The petitioners were then charged with violations of the SSS law for
failure to report some of the respondents for compulsory membership with the SSS or to remit
their SSS contributions and loans. The respondents are claiming entitlement for actual and
exemplary damages as well. The petitioners said that they were not able to work on the SSS
contributions of the employees because of the economic difficulties they face when the buildings
and equipment of Footjoy were destroyed by a fire which resulted to the termination of its
operations.
22 | P a g e
The petitioners did not deny that they failed remitting the SSS contributions and loan payments
of the respondents which violated the SSS Law. The petitioners stated that they failed to do
their duty because of economic difficulties and that they are ready to finish their obligations with
the SSS through installment as a mode of payment.
The assistant provincial prosecutor then issued a joint resolution which found probable cause to
charge Footjoy with violations of the SSS law. The provincial prosecutor filed two informations
against Tan, Domingo, and Lim for violations of Sec.9, 10, Sec 28 of the SSS Law.
The petitioners then went to the DOJ questioning the probable cause which was filed against
them which the DOJ granted. The DOJ also directed the prosecutor to withdraw the
informations he charged.
The Court of Appeals then reversed the DOJ resolutions and reinstated the resolution of the the
Provincial Prosecutor. The petitioners then went to the higher court for the reversal of the
decision of the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is probable cause in charging the petitioners of the offenses mentioned.

Case Digest Tan vs Ballena
____________________________________________________________________________
RULING:
Yes, there was probable cause in charging the petitioners. The court held that, In the present
case, petitioners were charged with violations of the SSS Law for their failure to either promptly
report some of the respondents for compulsory coverage/membership with the SSS or remit
their SSS contributions and loan amortizations. In support of their claims, respondents have
attached unto their Joint Complaint-Affidavit a summary of their unreported and unremitted SSS
contributions, as gathered from the SSS Online Inquiry System, and a computation of their
unreported and unremitted SSS contributions.[62]
On the part of the petitioners, they have not denied their fault in not remitting the SSS
contributions and loan payments of the respondents in violation of Section 28, paragraphs (e),
(f) and (h) of the SSS Law. Instead, petitioners interposed the defenses of lack of criminal intent
and good faith, as their failure to remit was brought about by alleged economic difficulties, and
they have already agreed to settle their obligations with the SSS.
As held by the Court of Appeals, 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.
23 | P a g e
The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts
which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala
prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is
done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala
prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?
Thus, the petitioners' admission in the instant case of their violations of the provisions of the
SSS Law is more than enough to establish the existence of probable cause to prosecute them
for the same.
DISPOSITION:
The decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution is affirmed.

Case Digest Santiago vs CA
____________________________________________________________________________
Manuel Santiago Et Al vs Court of Appeals and Social Security System

G.R. NO. L-39949(1984)
FACTS:
The petitioners in this case were former employees of I-Feng Enamelling Company Inc. Some
were employees from 1950 until the company seized its business operations on May 1, 1965,
and since the enactment of the Social Security Act, RA 1161 as amended, the employees have
been contributing to the System through salary deductions. The appellants also have loan
benefits that were deducted and collected by their employer. The petitioners alleged that the
employer failed to remit to the System not only installment payment to their salary loans
amounting to P7940.13 but also the back premiums amounting to P137,787.90 as of July 1966
excluding penalties amounting to P63,734.97 as of August 9, 1966.
The petitioners went to the SSC and filed a claim to have the amounts credited in their favor but
the SSC denied their petition and stated that their case is untenable and that their claim are
deductions made on their salaries which were not remitted to the System then they proceed
against I-Feng Enamelling Company.
The petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the SSC. The
petitioners stated that they are entitled for the full credit of the premium contributions and salary
24 | P a g e
loan installments that was deducted from their wages because by law, a contract of agency
exist between the SSS and the employer. The petitioners then went to the higher court praying
that the decision of the CA be reversed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the premium contributions and salary loan pyaments that were not remitted to
the SSS by the employer should be credited in favor of the petitioners by the System.
RULING:
No, the court ruled that only premium contributions paid by the employees may be credited to
them.The court stated that if the employees are to be allowed to be credited the deductions by
the SSS, it would open the floodgates from unscrupulous employers to circumvent the system
and not remit to the Social Security System since it would just credit it back to the employees
even though the employer fails to remit to the system. As per the premium contributions, under
sec. 22(b) of the Social Security Act stating: (b) The contributions payable under this Act in
cases where an employer refuses or neglects to pay the same shall be collected by the System
in the same manner as taxes are made collectible under the National Internal Revenue Code,
as amended, Failure or refusal of the employer to pay or remit the contributions herein
prescribed shall not prejudice the right of the covered employee to the benefits of the coverage.
Covered employees are entitled to the benefits of the coverage, such as death, sickness,
retirement, and
Case Digest Santiago vs CA
____________________________________________________________________________
permanent disability benefits. These benefits continue to be enjoyed by the employees by

operation of law and not , as petitioners allege, because the premium contributions and salary
loan installment payments have already became the money of the System upon payment by the
employees to the employer. It should be remembered that funds contributed to the System by
compulsion of law are funds belonging to the members, which are merely held in trust by the
government.
DISPOSITION:
The judgement is modified that only the premium contributions paid by the petitioners to its
employer, shall be credited in their favor so they may continue the benefits of the coverage of
the law. No costs.
25 | P a g e
Case Digest Mendoza vs People
____________________________________________________________________________
Romarico J. Mendoza vs People of the Philippines

G.R. NO. 183891(2011)
FACTS:
In this case, petitioner Romarico Mendoza, the President of Summa Alta Tierra IndustriesInc.
filed a motion for reconsideration for the reversal of the decision dated August 3, 2010 wherein
he was convicted for his failure to remit the SSS contributions of his employees. In the decision
dated August 3, 2010 the conviction of Mendoza for the violation of Section 22(a) and (d) in
relation to Section 28 of RA 8282 of the Social Security act of 1997. The decision laid stress that
the petitioner admitted in the trial that he did not remit the SSS premium contributions of his
employees from August 1998 to July 1999 amounting to P2389, 756.80. The amount went up to
P421,151.09. Mendoza stated that his failure to remit was caused by the decline of the
economy. Mendoza pleaded good faith and lack of criminal intent as his defenses in the case.
The trial court then ruled in favor of SSS and convicted Mendoza to serve a penalty of 6 years
and 1 day to 8 years and directed him to pay the contributions of his employees. Mendoza
alleged that he was designated in the information as a “proprietor” and should be exempted
from criminal liability since proprietors are not enumerated in Section 28(f) of RA 8282 but his
26 | P a g e
argument was rejected since he would just escape liability through the creative use of
managerial titles like in the case of Garcia v SSC legal and collection. The penalty imposed
against him was then modified which changed his penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prison
correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
In the present motion of consideration of Mendoza, he stated that during his appeal to the Court
of Appeals, he voluntary paid the SSS the amount of P239, 756 to settle his delinquency and he
is praying that insteam of imprisonment he should just be imposed of a fine and that not all the
elements of the crime charged against him was proven, he also said that he should be included
in RA 9903 due for his payment in 2007 which will make him entitled for acquittal.
ISSUE:
a. Whether or not Mendoza should be covered by RA 9903
b. Whether or not Mendoza is Liable for under Sec. 28 of RA 8282
RULING:
a. No, Mendoza is not covered by RA 9903. This act offered those delinquent employers to
pay their obligations to the to the SSS without any penalties attached in their respective
accountabilities within six months from the date of its effectivity. In this case Mendoza
paid before the effectivity of the said act, which makes him not covered of the
condonation.
b. Yes, the court held that good faith is not a defense in this case since the Social Security
Law is a malum prohibita.
Case Digest Mendoza vs People
____________________________________________________________________________
DISPOSITION:
The Court affirms Mendoza’s conviction for violation of Section 22a and d in relation to Section
29 of RA 8282 and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 4 years and 2 months of
prison correctional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
27 | P a g e
Case Digest Ortega v SSC
____________________________________________________________________________
Ibarra P. Ortega v Social Security Commission and Social Security System

G.R. NO. 176150(2008)
FACTS:
Ibarra Ortega who is a member of the Social Security System, filed claims for partial permanent
disability benefits because of his condition of Generalized Arthritis and Partial Ankylosis, which
the SSS granted for 23 months. After the expiration of the disability benefits, he filed with the
SSS a claim for permanent disability benefits, however, it was denied on the ground that he was
already granted disability benefits on the same illness and that physical examinations revealed
that the said illness did not enhance or progressed.
On June 19, 2000, Ortega filed before the SSC an unverified Petition that states that the SSS
denied his application even though his physician diagnosed him from suffering from Trigger
Finger and another medical practitioner Diagnosed him with Bronchial Asthma, Hypertension
and Gastro Esophageal Reflux disease. Ortega was then directed to the SSS office of Medical
28 | P a g e
Program to review his disability claim. The findings of the Medical Program found that there was
no progression regarding his illness.
The SSC then docketed Ortega’s petition. SSC later on denied Ortega’s claim for permanent
disbality and stated that Ortega has already reached the age of 60 with only 41 contributions.
He was given an option to
a. Conitnue paying to the SSS monthly contributions on his own to complete the required
120 monthly contributions in order to avail of the retirement pension benefit;
b. To save his monthly contributions with the SSS for his and his family’s future benefits or
c. To avail of the lump sum retirement benefit.
Ortega then moved for the resolution. The SSS then conducted a domiciliary visit and physical
examination of Ortega in order to see if he is qualified for such benefit, subsequently, no
sufficient basis was gathered in order for Ortega to be qualified of total permanent disability
benefits.
Furthermore, Ortega was not only examined by one SSS physicians, he was examined by four
SSS physcians. The examination revealed that he has a slight limitation regarding in the
movement of his hands, and that this finding does not qualify Ortega for permanent disability
benefits.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ortega is qualified for permanent disability benefits
RULING:
No, the court agreed with the decision of the CA in denying the claim of Ortega. In this kind of
cases, a fact may be deem established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount
Case Digest Ortega v SSC
____________________________________________________________________________
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
In this case, substantial evidence abounds. The conluclusion that petitioner was examined not
just by one but four SSS physicians. The findings of the physicians do not qualify Ortega for the
benefits he is claiming. The SSS medical examiners are tasked by law to analyze the extent of
personal incapacity resulting from disease or injury. Oftentimes, a physician who is adequately
versed in the knowledge of anatomy and physiology will find himself deficient when called upon
to express an opinion on the permanent changes resulting from a disability. The members of
the Court cannot strip their judicial robe and don the physician’s gown, so to speak, in a
pretense to correlate variances in medical findings.
DISPOSITION:
The petition of Ortega is denied.
29 | P a g e
Case Digest SSC vs Favila
____________________________________________________________________________
Social Security Commission and Social Security System vs Teresa G. Favila

G.R. NO. 170195(2011)
FACTS:
Teresa Favila filed a petition before the SSC stating that she was married to Florante Favila on
January 17, 1970, and that he designated Teresa as the sole beneficiary in the E-1 form he
submitted to the Social Security System in Quezon City on June 30, 1970. Teresa also stated
that Florante also designated their children Jofel, Floresa, Florante II as beneficiaries. When
Florante died, Teresa stated that his pension benefits under the SSS were only given to
Florante II who is the only minor at that time but only until the age of 21. Teresa is claiming that
since she is the legal surviving spouse, she is entitled to Receive the pension benefits of
Florante. She filed her claim to the SSS, but it was denied because Florante’s pension was
settled in favor of Teresa as the guardian of Florante II. It was also said that Teresa received
30 | P a g e
payment for 57 months when Florante reached the age of 21. The claim then went to another
proceeding on July 11, 2002 wherein the 5-year balance of the pension was settled in favor of
Florante II. SSS received a letter from Esmelita, Florante’s sister, alleging that her brother and
Teresita have been separated for a long time. She even stated that Teresita and Florante only
lived together for 10 years and the reason for their separation is that Teresita had another affair
with a married man which Teresita admitted. SSS investigated and gathered information from
Teresita’s neighbors that Teresita which revealed that she also had a relationship with a police
officer. The SSS ruled that Teresita is not qualified to claim the death benefits of Florante since
she has to prove that she is dependent with the member’s death in two factors which first (1)
legality of the marital relationship and (2) dependency for support. The SSS ruled that she is not
dependent to Florante because of marital infidelity. Teresa did not deny her adulterous
relationship and the SSC declared that she is not dependent to Florante. Teresa then went to
the CA and is claiming that the SSS should have approved her claim for Florante’s death
benefits since she is the legal surviving spouse. The CA agreed with Teresa that she is the
surviving legal spouse, and she was also designated by Florante as a beneficiary. The
investigation of SSS involving Teresa’s neighbors resulted to Teresa’s problems, to put it simply
the disqualification of Teresa’s non entitlement to the benefits came from unfounded rumors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Teresa is a primary beneficiary to the death benefits of Florante.
RULING:
No, Teresa failed to establish of the two qualifying factors for her to be entitled for the benefits.
The claimant spouse must therefore establish two qualifying factors:
Case Digest SSC vs Favila
____________________________________________________________________________
a. That she is the legitimate spouse

b. That she is dependent upon the member for support
There is no question that Teresita is the legal wife of Florante, however, Teresa failed to prove
that she is dependent to Florante. It was revealed by the Memorandum of SSS Senior analyst
that Florante was in fact living with a common law wife who also applied for his death benefits
but was denied. Teresa’s bare allegation that she was dependent upon her husband for support
and her misplaced reliance on the presumption of dependency by reason of her valid and then
subsisting marriage with Florante, Teresa has not presented sufficient evidence to discharge
her burden of proving that she was dependent upon her husband for support at the time of his
death. The investigations conducted by the SSS are appropriate in order to ensure that the
benefits provided under the Social Security Law are received by rightful beneficiaries.
31 | P a g e
DISPOSITION:
The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. Teresa Favila is not entitled to death
benefits accruing from the death of Florante Favila.
32 | P a g e

Socleg Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socleg Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S.

Social Security System Law

CMS ESTATE, INC vs SSS

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Social Legislation/2C RA 1161

SSS vs Delos Santos

SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda. De Bailon

Villarica Pawnshop, Inc et al. vs Social Security Commission et al.

United Christian Missionary vs SSC

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Salvador, Joshua Philippe S. Social Security System Law

Manuel Santiago Et Al vs Court of Appeals and Social Security System

permanent disability benefits. These benefits continue to be enjoyed by the employees by

Romarico J. Mendoza vs People of the Philippines

Ibarra P. Ortega v Social Security Commission and Social Security System

Social Security Commission and Social Security System vs Teresa G. Favila

a. That she is the legitimate spouse

You might also like