Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Finals Reviewer 2017 (Based On Pointers) - Phil

Agrarian
Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 1

Finals Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405

I. S OCIAL S ECURITY L AW (RA 8282)
AG&P chose dacion en pago. They offered a lot in Batangas as form
Jurisdiction of payment. To effect the transfer, a Deed of Assignment has to be
SEC. 5. Settlement of Disputes. - (a) Any dispute arising under this executed between the parties and SSS was not able to draft one so
Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties AG&P prepared one which was subsequently approved.
thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by
the Commission, and any case led with respect thereto shall be More than a year after the approval of AG&P’s proposal, SSS sent a
heard by the Commission, or any of its members, or by hearing of revised copy but the obligation of AG&P ballooned allegedly because
cers duly authorized by the Commission and decided within the of the additional interest and penalty charges assessed on AG&P’s
mandatory period of twenty (20) days after the submission of the outstanding balance. AG&P didn’t want to pay the additional
evidence. The ling, determination and settlement of disputes shall charges but SSS won’t accept the payment by dacion en pago unless
be governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the the additional charges are included.
Commission. xxx
The CA held that the subject of the complaint is the enforcement of
ATTY GCC: the dacion en pago, thus the action then is one for specific
“penalties thereon”- do not refer to penalties in criminal violations performance which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. SSS insists
under the SS Law. It refers to administrative liability of employer, that it is the SSS’s Commission who has jurisdiction.
and to damages prescribed by SS Law.
Issue: Which body has jurisdiction to entertain a controversy arising
Are criminal offenses under SS law within the jurisdiction of the from the non-implementation of a dacion en pago agreed upon by
SSC? Do criminal offenses under SS Law constitute as “disputes” the parties as a means of settlement of private respondents'
with respect to coverage, etc.? liabilities?

Section 28 (i) of 2016 Rules of Procedure of SSC states: Ruling: RTC has jurisdiction.
Criminal action arising from a violation of the provisions of From the allegations of respondents' complaint, it readily appears
this Act may be commenced by the SSS or the employee that there is no longer any dispute with respect to respondents'
concerned either under this Act or in appropriate cases accountability to the SSS. Respondents had, in fact, admitted their
under the RPC: Provided, That such criminal action may be delinquency and offered to settle them by way of dacion en pago
filed by the SSS in the city or municipality where the SSS subsequently approved by the SSS in Resolution No. 270-s. 2001
office is located, if the violation was committed within its
territorial jurisdiction or on Metro Manila at the option of The controversy lies in the non-implementation of the approved and
the SSS. agreed dacion en pago on the part of the SSS. As such, respondents
filed a suit to obtain its enforcement which is, doubtless, a suit for
What are these offenses? specific performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation
1. Failure to register as employer beyond the competence of the Commission.
2. Failure to report your employee
3. Failure on the part of the employer to deduct the contribution of Weekly stipends or excess in service surplus; employer-employee
the employee relationship
4. If the employer deducted but did not remit Republic v. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R. NO. 172101, Nov. 23, 2007
5. Estafa, under the Revised Penal Code. Facts: Respondent Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of
owners- members. Its primary objectives are to provide savings and
ATTY GCC: credit facilities and to develop other livelihood services for its
Sec 28(i) talks about “commencement”. I tried calling the SS Office owners- members.
and according to them, they have the option to file a criminal ase
either before SSC or regular court citing Sec 28(i) but there is a In the discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives, respondent
directive that criminal cases be filed before the regular courts. cooperative entered into several Service Contracts with Stanfilco —
a division of Dole Philippines, Inc. and a company based in Bukidnon.
I submit that SSC has no jurisdiction over criminal offenses because: The owners-members do not receive compensation or wages from
1. There is no express provision in the law relating to the jurisdiction the respondent cooperative. Instead, they receive a share in the
of the SSC in criminal cases. service surplus, which the respondent cooperative earns from
2. SSC has no power as that granted to RTC. (e.g. Power to issue different areas of trade it engages in, such as the income derived
from the said Service Contracts with Stanfilco. The owners-members
warrants of arrest/commitment orders etc)
get their income from the service surplus generated by the quality
3. Based on experience, I have yet to hear any criminal action filed
and amount of services they rendered, which is determined by the
with SSC. It’s always with the regular courts.
Board of Directors of the respondent cooperative.

Dacion en pago implementation
In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997,
SSS v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., G.R. No. 175952, April 30, 2008
the owners-members of the respondent cooperative who were
Facts: AG&P informed SSS of its delinquencies and proposed to pay
assigned to Stanfilco requested the services of the latter to register
it, but requested for the condonation of all penalties. SSS suggested
them with petitioner SSS as self-employed and to remit their
2 options to AG&P: payment by installment or through dacion en
contributions as such
pago.

Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 2

SSS sent a letter to Asiapro that based on the Service Contracts it Second. The weekly stipends or the so-called shares in the service
executed with Stanfilco, respondent cooperative is actually a surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its owners-members
manpower contractor supplying employees to Stanfilco and for that were in reality wages, as the same were equivalent to an amount
reason, it is an employer of its owners-members working with not lower than that prescribed by existing labor laws, rules and
Stanfilco. Thus, respondent cooperative should register itself with regulations, including the wage order applicable to the area and
petitioner SSS as an employer and make the corresponding report industry; or the same shall not be lower than the prevailing rates of
and remittance of premium contributions in accordance with the wages. It cannot be doubted then that those stipends or shares in
Social Security Law. the service surplus are indeed wages, because these are given to the
owners-members as compensation in rendering services to
Issue: Who should determine existence of employer-employee respondent cooperative's client, Stanfilco.
relationship?
Third. It is also stated in the above-mentioned Service Contracts that
Ruling: Since the existence of an employer-employee relationship it is the respondent cooperative which has the power to investigate,
between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members was discipline and remove the owners-members and its team leaders
put in issue and considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS who were rendering services at Stanfilco.
Law is predicated on the existence of such relationship, it behooves
the petitioner SSC to determine if there is really an employer- Fourth. It is the respondent cooperative which has the sole control
employee relationship that exists between the respondent over the manner and means of performing the services under the
cooperative and its owners-members. Service Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods
of work. Also, the respondent cooperative is solely and entirely
The question on the existence of an employer-employee responsible for its owners-members, team leaders and other
relationship is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National representatives at Stanfilco.
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Article 217 of the Labor Code
enumerating the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc., v Ferrer-Calleja, it
provides that: actually recognized that an owner-member of a cooperative can be
ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE its own employee. The management of the affairs of the respondent
COMMISSION cooperative is vested in its Board of Director and not in its owners-
— (a) xxx members as a whole.
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other ATTY GCC’s discussion on the case:
claims, arising from employer-employee relations, You have a cooperative with a registered CBA. And the cooperative
including those of persons in domestic or household has owners and members. This cooperative has a contract with
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand Stanfilco and because they have this service contract, owners-
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied members were giving services to Stanfilco and in return Stanfilco will
with a claim for reinstatement. pay the cooperative, and the Board will thereafter declare it as
”shares in the service surplus”. And the owner-members are paid by
Although the aforesaid provision speaks merely of claims for Social the board out of the income that the cooperative earned. So that
Security, it would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof, was there arrangement. They call it wage. They don’t call it salary.
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by the
system. Hence, the question on the existence of an employer- Now, it reached a point where the cooperative realized that it’s
employee relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage good that our members should register with SSS. They have the
of the Social Security System is explicitly excluded from the intention to register that our owner-members are self-employed.
jurisdiction of the NLRC and falls within the jurisdiction of the SSC SSS said no. You are not to register as self-employed because you
which is primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising cooperative is the employer and the owner-members are the
under the Social Security Law of 1997. employees. Because of that there was a dispute. And it reached
Supreme Court.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and The coverage of the SS Law is based on the existence on employer-
engagement of the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever employee relationship. Meaning, if there is no relationship, there is
means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the no compulsory coverage. That is the rule. One exception is “purely
worker's conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall casual employment”.
consideration. The most important element is the employer's
control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the The question that reached SC is who will determine E-E?
work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to It is the Social Security Commission. But, later on also, when we
accomplish it. reach the discussion about questions like “what if there is already a
final and executory judgment from the labor court regarding E-E
All elements are present in this case. relationship, is SSC bound?
First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the
respondent cooperative which has the exclusive discretion in the We have cases which say that SSC is bound by the finding of the final
selection and engagement of the owners-members as well as its and executory judgment on the existence or absence of e-e
team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco. relationship. This is to avoid to conflicting decisions coming from
two quasi-judicial bodies.

except those classes of employees contemplated in Section 8(j) of
Section 5 says about dispute regarding coverage, benefits etc. the Social Security Act.
But what you find here (Section 217 of Labor Code) is the word
claims. Is this covered under dispute in Section 5 of RA 8282? Yes. Despite the insistence of petitioner that they were project
Claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage of SSC. employees, the facts show that as masons, carpenters and fine
So how to determine the relationship? Use the four-fold test. graders in petitioner's various construction projects, they performed
work which was usually necessary and desirable to petitioner's
In this case, the “weekly stipends” or “shares in the service surplus” business which involves construction of roads and bridges. It is not
are in actuality wages. When you draft a contract and you will say enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or phase of
that “the equivalent is not lower than that prescribed by the existing work to be called a project employee. There must also be a
labor law obligations”, that is in reality wages. determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or
Also, Cooperative exercised the power to discipline and control. termination of the project at the time the employee was engaged if
the objectives of Article 280 are to be achieved. This second
In the Ferrer-Calleja Case cited in the decision, SC said that the requirement was not met in this case.
owner-members cannot bargain against the cooperative because
how can the owners-members bargain themselves. But the issue in Moreover, while it may be true that private respondents were
this case is not the same with the case at bar. The issue in Ferrer initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated re-
Calleja is about the right to bargain. While the issue here is whether hiring and continuing need for their services over a long span of time
the cooperative is an employer. — the shortest being two years and the longest being eight — have
undeniably made them regular employees. This Court has held that
Supreme Court emphasized that in a cooperative, the affair is vested an employment ceases to be co-terminus with specific projects
in the Board of Directors, not owners-members. In fact, it is the BOD when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of
who decides how much will be paid to the owner-members. It is the employer's business and re-engaged for many more projects
logical that the cooperative can enter into an employment with its without interruption.
owners. It is the board that decides relative to this.
Lastly, in the proceedings before the SSC and the Court of Appeals,
Project employees petitioner was unable to show that private respondents were
Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125837, October 6, 2004 appraised of the project nature of their employment, the specific
Facts: Private respondents Andres Paguio, Pablo Canale, Ruel projects themselves or any phase thereof undertaken by petitioner
Pangan, Aurelio Paguio, Rolando Trinidad, Romeo Tapang and Carlos and for which private respondents were hired. He failed to show any
Maliwat (hereinafter referred to as respondents) filed a Petition with document such as private respondents' employment contracts and
the SSC for SSS coverage and contributions against petitioner employment records that would indicate the dates of hiring and
Reynaldo Chua, owner of Prime Mover Construction Development, termination in relation to the particular construction project or
claiming that they were all regular employees of the petitioner in his phases in which they were employed.
construction business.
ATTY GCC:
Private respondents claimed that they were assigned by petitioner In SS Law, there are employments which are covered and therefore
in his various construction projects continuously. Private employer must report and employee must be reported. There are
respondents also alleged that petitioner dismissed all of them also employments which are not covered under the SS law. These
without justifiable grounds and without notice to them. They further are the exceptions. The list of exceptions is provided in Section 8 (j)
alleged that petitioner did not report them to the SSS for of RA 8282 (see next page for the list).
compulsory coverage in flagrant violation of the Social Security Act.
Farm workers; employer-employee relationship
Petitioner insists that private respondents were not regular, but Gapayao v. Fulo, G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013
project, employees and thus not subject to SSS coverage. Facts: Jaime Fulo had been working in a farm owned by Jaime
Gapayao since 1983. In November 1997, Jaime Fulo was
Issue: Are private respondents “project employees’? If so, are they electrocuted while working in the said farm. Jaime Fulo died.
covered? Thereafter, Rosario Fulo, the widow of Jaime Fulo, filed a claim for
death benefits before the SSS (Social Security System). It turned out
Ruling: It doesn’t matter. They are covered. however that Jaime Fulo was never registered with the SSS.
Petitioner himself admitted that they worked in his construction Eventually, SSS ordered Gapayao, as the employer, to pay the SSS
projects, although the period of their employment was allegedly co- contributions due with penalty.
terminus with their phase of work. Even without such admission
from petitioner, the existence of an employer-employee relationship Gapayao averred he cannot be made liable to pay the SSS
between the parties can easily be determined by the application of contributions because according to him there was no employer-
the "control test." Suffice it to say that regardless of the nature of employee relationship between him and Jaime Fulo. He argued,
their employment, whether it is regular or project, private among others, that Jaime Fulo was not his employee because:
respondents are subject of the compulsory coverage under the SSS 1. he did not work regular hours as he was only called
Law, their employment not falling under the exceptions provided when needed and that Fulo can even look for other jobs
by the law. This rule is in accord with the Court's ruling in Luzon elsewhere if he wanted to. In fact, Fulo also worked for
Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS to the effect that all employees, regardless some other people;
of tenure, would qualify for compulsory membership in the SSS, 2. he was only an “extra” in the farm;

3. Gapayao had no control over him (lack of control); inclusion of such employee in the SSS
5. Such other services performed by temporary and other
Issue: Is a farm worker covered under SS law? employees which may be excluded by regulation of the
Commission. Employees of bona fide independent
Ruling: Yes. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of contractors shall not be deemed employees of the
seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employer engaging the services of said contractors.
employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular
seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The ATTY GCC:
nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the When you are given a question of whether a person is an employee
off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the under SS Law and therefore that person should be reported for
summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in compulsory coverage, you look at the exceptions. If that person does
regular employment because of the nature of their job, and not not fall under the exceptions, then you apply the general rule in SS
because of the length of time they have worked. Law: All employees regardless of the nature of their employment are
covered.
The rule, however, is not absolute. In Hacienda Fatima v. National
Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food & General Trade, the Court Mansal v. P.P. Gocheco Lumber Co., G.R. No. L-8017, April 30, 1955
held that seasonal workers who have worked for one season only Facts: Plaintiff-appellant suffered injuries in the middle finger of his
may not be considered regular employees. Similarly, in Mercado, Sr. right hand while stacking lumber in the lumberyard of the
v. NLRC, it was held that when seasonal employees are free to defendant. As a member of a group of laborers doing that job for the
contract their services with other farm owners, then the former are defendant company, he was not employed directly by the company,
not regular employees. but worked under a contractor by the name of Pablo Manansala.

For regular employees to be considered as such, the primary The defense of the defendant, which was sustained by the court a
standard used is the reasonable connection between the particular quo, is that plaintiff-appellant was a purely casual laborer, employed
activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the by what is known in law as an independent contractor, Pablo
employer. Manansala, who had direction and control of plaintiff-appellant
without interference on the part of the defendant.
Taxi driver engaged on boundary basis
Even-if the driver is getting income through “boundary,” this does Issue: Was Mansal’s employment purely casual?
not negate the existence of employee-employer relationship.
Ruling: No. It is not the continuity of employment that renders the
Labor-only contracting employer responsible, but whether the work of the laborer is part of
Labor-only contracting is prohibited. the business or occupation of the employer. In the case of Calupitan
Labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the vs. Vda. e Hijos de Angel Jose cited in appellant's brief, the deceased
contractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a laborer was hired only for one trip, yet we held that the work was
job, work or service for the principal, and the following elements are not purely casual because the trip, was undertaken in two or three
present: times a year for the accommodation of the defendant's customers
a. The contractor does not have substantial capital or and may be regarded as part of the employer's activities.
investments in the form of tools, equipment, machines,
work premises, among others, and the employees It will be noted that in order that an employer may not be
recruited and placed are performing activities that are responsible for an injury to a laborer it is necessary that the
usually necessary or desirable to the operation of the "employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the
company, or directly related to the main business of the occupation or business of the employer." Casual means occasional,
principal within a definite or predetermined period, coming without regularity. The work is purely casual when it is not a
regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be part of the business in which the employer is engaged. The clause "is
performed within or outside the premises of the not for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer"
principal; or complements and explains the term "purely casual".
b. The contractor does not exercise the right to control
over the performance of the work of the employee In a sawmill, for example, if a power unit running the mill gets out of
order and a mechanic is contracted to fix the engine, the work of the
Employment services not covered: purely casual - Sec. 8(j) mechanic would be considered as purely casual, because the
1. Purely casual employment and not for the purpose of reparation of the mill is not the actual work or business of the
occupation or business of the employer; sawmill but the sawing of lumber. But the piling up of lumber is
2. Service performed on or in connection with an alien work directly connected with the business of a lumberyard. Lumber
vessel by an employee if he is employed when such must be sorted and piled up in groups according to sizes to facilitate
vessel is outside the Philippines; handling and sale. The piling up of lumber is, therefore, an ordinary
3. Service performed in the employ of the Philippine part of the work in a lumberyard.
Government or instrumentality or agency thereof;
4. Service performed in the employ of a foreign Duties of Employer
government or international organization, or their Among others:
wholly-owned instrumentality, unless, there is an 1. Require presentation of SS number of prospective
agreement with the Philippine Government for the employee

2. Report all employees for SS coverage within 30 days How is the sickness benefit computed?
from date of employment 1. Exclude the semester of sickness.
3. Deduct from the employees the monthly SS A semester refers to two consecutive quarters ending in the quarter
contributions based on schedule of contributions; pat of sickness. A quarter refers to three consecutive months ending
their share of contributions including Employees’ March, June, September or December.
Compensation and remit these contributions to SSS or 2. Count twelve (12) months backwards starting from the month
accredited banks within first 10 calendar days following immediately before the semester of sickness.
the month when said contributions are due and 3. Identify the six (6) highest MSCs within the 12-month period.
applicable Monthly salary credit (MSC) means the compensation base for
4. Submit a summary of all contributions contributions and benefits related to the total earnings for the
5. Issue official receipts and maintain official records of month. The maximum covered earnings or compensation is P16,000,
employment and deductions effective January 1, 2014. Please refer to the following table:
6. Remit to SSS all salary, educational, stocks investment
Range of Compensation MSC Range of Compensation MSC
or privatization loan amortization of their employees
and submit a form P 1,000 – P 1,249.99 1,000 P 8,750 – P 9,249.99 9,000
7. Submit a summary of all employees’ loan amortization P 1,250 – P 1,749.99 1,500 P 9,250 – P 9,749.99 9,500
8. Advance SS and EC sickness benefits once approved by P 1,750 – P 2,249.99 2,000 P 9,750 – P 10,249.99 10,000
SSS
P 2,250 – P 2,749.99 2,500 P 10,250 – P 10,749.99 10,500
9. Advance SS maternity benefits due
10. File for reimbursement for all legally advanced sickness P 2,750 – P 3,249.99 3,000 P 10,750 – P 11,249.99 11,000
and maternity benefits P 3,250 – P 3,749.99 3,500 P 11,250 – P 11,749.99 11,500
11. Benefits under social security program P 3,750 – P 4,249.99 4,000 P 11,750 – P 12,249.99 12,000
12. Covered employees are entitled to a package of P 4,250 – P 4,749.99 4,500 P 12,250 – P 12,749.99 12,500
benefits under social security and EC in the event of
P 4,750 – P 5,249.99 5,000 P 12,750 – P 13,249.99 13,000
death, disability, sickness, maternity, and old-age
13. Self-employed and voluntary members also get same P 5,250 – P 5,749.99 5,500 P 13,250 – P 13,749.99 13,500
benefits except those benefits under the EC program P 5,750 – P 6,249.99 6,000 P 13,750 – P 14,249.99 14,000
14. Sickness benefit P 6,250 – P 6,749.99 6,500 P 14,250 – P 14,749.99 14,500
15. A daily cash allowance paid for the number of days a P 6,750 – P 7,249.99 7,000 P 14,750 – P 15,249.99 15,000
member is unable to work due to sickness or injury.
P 7,250 – P 7,749.99 7,500 P 15,250 – P 15,749.99 15,500
The amount is equivalent to 90% of the member’s
average daily salary credit. P 7,750 – P 8,249.99 8,000 P 15,750 and over 16,000
P 8,250 – P 8,749.99 8,500

Definition of “Employer” 4. Add the six (6) highest MSCs to get the total MSC.
Sec 8(c) Employer - Any person, natural or juridical, domestic or 5. Divide the total MSC by 180 days to get the ADSC.
foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, 6. Multiply the ADSC by ninety percent (90%) to get the daily
industry, undertaking or activity of any kind and uses the services of sickness allowance.
another person who is under his orders as regards the employment, 7. Multiply the daily sickness allowance by the approved number
except the Government and any of its political subdivisions, of days to arrive at the amount of benefit due.
branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned or
controlled by the Government: Provided, That a self- employed For example, an SSS member got sick or was injured in October 2015
person shall be both employee and employer at the same time. for 20 days:
a) The semester of sickness would be from July 2015 to December
Sickness benefit – number of days that can be paid 2015.
A daily cash allowance paid for the number of days a member is b) The 12-month period would be from July 2014 to June 2015,
unable to work due to sickness or injury. The amount is equivalent within which the six (6) highest MSC will be chosen.
to 90% of the member’s average daily salary credit. c) Let us assume that the six (6) highest MSC are P15,000 each. The
total MSC would then be P90,000 (P15,000 x 6).
Requirements: d) Divide the total MSC by 180 to get the ADSC, or P500 (P90,000 ÷
1. He is unable to work due to sickness or injury and confined 180).
either in a hospital or at home for at least 4 days; e) The daily sickness allowance is 90 percent (90%) of the ADSC
2. He has paid at least 3 months of contributions within the 12- (P500 x 90%), or P450.
month period immediately before the semester of f) Multiply the daily sickness allowance by the number of sick days
sickness/injury (P450 x 20 days), resulting in a sickness benefit due of P9,000.
3. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and
4. He has notified the employer or SSS, if separated, voluntary or How many days in a year can a member avail of the sickness
self-employed. benefit?
• Notify employer within 5 calendar days after start of A member can be granted sickness benefit for a maximum of 120
sickness/injury and employer must notify SSS within 5 days days in one (1) calendar year. Any unused portion of the allowable
after receipt of notification. Notice is not required if member’s 120 days sickness benefit cannot be carried forward nor added to
confinement is in hospital or member got sick while working or the total number of allowed compensable days for the following
within company premises. year.

The sickness benefit shall be paid for not more than 240 days on Notice required: As soon as pregnancy is confirmed, member must
account of the same illness. If the sickness or injury still persists after notify immediately his employer or SSS, as the case may be, and
240 days, the claim will be considered a disability claim. probable date of childbirth at least 60 days from the date of
conception. Employer must in turn notify SSS after receipt of
Effect of failure or delay in notification notification. Failure to observe this rule may result in denial.
• If employees notifies beyond period, confinement shall be deemed
to have started not earlier than the fifth day. Can a member apply for sickness benefit if she has been paid
• If employer notifies beyond period, employer shall be reimbursed maternity benefit? No. A female member cannot claim for sickness
only for each day of confinement starting from the 10th calendar benefit for a period of 60 or 78 days, as the case may be, within
day immediately preceding the date of notification to SSS. which she has been paid the maternity benefit. As a rule, no
• If employee notified the employer but the latter failed to notify member can be entitled to two (2) benefits for the same period.
SSS, employer shall have no right to recover the daily sickness
allowance advanced. Who determines e-e?
The question on the existence of an employer-employee
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member confined in relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage of the
hospital/home: Social Security System is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of
1. For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed within 1 year from the NLRC and falls within the jurisdiction of the SSC, which is
last day of confinement; primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising under the
2. For home, 1 year from start of illness. Failure to file the claim Social Security Law of 1997. (Republic v. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R.
within the prescribed period will result to denial of claim. NO. 172101, Nov. 23, 2007)

Maternity leave benefit Effect of final judgment at NLRC on ER-EE Relationship
A daily cash allowance granted to female members who was unable Final judgment of the NLRC on the relationship constitutes res
to work due to childbirth or miscarriage. It is equivalent to 100% of judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
member’s average daily salary credit multiplied by 60 days for
normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for caesarian section Co v. People, GR No. 160265, July 13, 2009
delivery. Facts: Petitioner was charged criminally by claimed employees for
violation of SS Law for non-remittance of contributions. Prior to
Qualifications for entitlement: criminal case, a final decision of NLRC held that the claimed
a. She has paid at least three (3) monthly contributions in the employees were independent contractors and not employees.
twelve-month period immediately preceding the semester of her Petitioner filed a motion to quash.
childbirth or miscarriage
b. She has notified her employer of her pregnancy through her Ruling: The mandatory coverage of RA1161, as amended is premised
employer, if employed, or to SSS if separated, voluntary or self- on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The final
employed. and executory NLRC decision (to the effect that the respondent
spouses were not employees of petitioner) was binding on this
How computed? Same as Sickness Benefit except for last 2 steps: criminal case for violation of RA 1161, as amended. Accordingly, the
5. Divide the total MSC by 180 days to get the ADSC. This is RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to grant
equivalent to the daily maternity allowance. petitioner’s motion to quash the information.
6. Multiply the daily maternity allowance either by 60 or 78 days,
as the case may be, to get the total amount of maternity Simply said, any conviction for violation of the SSS law based on the
benefit. erroneous premise of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship would be a transgression of petitioner's constitutional
For example, an SSS member gave birth in December 2015. rights.
a) The semester of contingency would be from July 2015 to
December 2015. ATTY GCC:
b) The 12-month period before the semester of contingency would There are 2 modes of Res Judicata: 1) bar by prior judgment, and 2)
be from July 2014 to June 2015. conclusiveness of the judgment. In this case it was not res judicata
c) Let us assume that the six (6) highest MSC are P15,000 each. as bar by prior judgment because there are two different cause of
Thus, the total MSC would be P90,000 (P15,000 x 6). action. One is a labor case and the other is a criminal case. What is
d) The daily maternity allowance would be P500 (P90,000 ÷ 180). applied is conclusiveness of judgment. You have substantial identity
e) Depending on her maternity case, the total maternity benefit due of the issue or cause of action because the existence or absence of
would either be: Er-Ee relationship has already been resolved in the labor case. Thus
! P30,000 (P500 x 60 days) for normal delivery/miscarriage/ectopic it is binding to the criminal case.
pregnancy without operation/H-mole, or
! P39,000 (P500 x 78 days) for caesarean delivery/ectopic pregnancy What if the case is a pending case in NLRC and another case in RTC is
with operation. also pending? So which case will have to move on? If there is a final
judgment in the RTC on the violation of the SS law and it is on the
Deliveries covered: Only the first four deliveries or miscarriages shall issue of whether there is Er-Ee relationship, you can always argue on
be paid starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282) the conclusiveness of the judgment, don’t use the bar by prior
judgment.


Contingencies covered; benefits where employer advances Some partial permanent disabilities:
• Retirement A complete and permanent loss or use of any of the following body
• Death parts:
• Disability one thumb one index finger
• Injury or Sickness one middle finger one ring finger
• Maternity one little finger hearing of one ear
• And other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial hearing of both ears sight of one eye
burden. one big toe one hand
one arm one foot
The benefits which the employer advances are sickness benefit and one leg one ear
maternity leave benefit. both ears

ATTY GCC: Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim:
“other contingencies”- If you have suffer from a hazard, there is a 10 years from the date of occurrence of disability
corresponding protection. How? In the form of benefits. But I submit
that there is no benefit to the catch all phrase “other C. Death – it is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum
contingencies”. Nowhere in the law does it provide for other paid to the beneficiaries of a deceased member
benefits aside from those specified above.
Which beneficiaries of a deceased member are eligible to receive
Other benefits the death benefit?
A. Retirement – It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump The death benefit goes to the primary beneficiaries of the deceased
sum paid to a member who can no longer work due to old age. member. These are the:
• legitimate dependent spouse, until he/she remarries, and
Who may qualify? • the dependent legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted,
1. A member who is 60 years old, separated from employment or and illegitimate children of the member who are not yet
ceased to be self-employed, and has paid at least 120 monthly 21 years old or over 21 years old, provided they are
contributions prior to the semester of retirement incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to physical
2. A member who us 65 years old whether employed or not and has or mental disability which is congenital in nature or
paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the acquired during minority.
semester of retirement.
In the absence of primary beneficiaries, the dependent parents are
When may underground mineworkers qualify for retirement considered the secondary beneficiaries.
benefit? In their absence, any other person designated by the member in
1. Has reached the age of 55 years old and is an underground his/her SSS records are considered as the beneficiary.
mineworker for at least 5 years (either continuous or If there is no designated beneficiary, the benefit shall be paid to the
accumulated) prior to the semester of retirement but whose deceased member’s legal heirs in accordance with the law of
actual date of retirement is not earlier than March 13, 1998; succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
separated from employment or in the case of self-employed, If no legal heirs, then the State.
has ceased self-employment, and has paid at least 120 monthly
contributions prior to the semester of retirement Atty GCC:
2. Has reached the age of 60 years old whether employed or not Principle in GSIS regarding the application will also apply in SSS. In
and has paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the GSIS, if there is a remarriage, the benefit is cut out because the
semester of retirement surviving spouse is not anymore dependent on the deceased
member.
B. Disability – A cash benefit granted – either as a monthly pension
or a lump sum amount – to a member who becomes permanently Claims under Labor Code vis-à-vis SSS
disabled, either partially or totally. Disability is restriction or lack Ortega v. SSC, G.R. No. 176150, June 25, 2008
(resulting from impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the Facts: Petitioner Ibarra Ortega, member of respondent Social
manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. Security System (SSS) filed claims for partial permanent disability
benefits on account of his illness with SSS, which the latter granted
Who is qualified? A member who suffers partial or total permanent for total of 23 months. After the expiration of his pension, Ortega
disability with at least one month contribution paid to the SSS prior then applied for total permanent disability benefits but such
to the semester of contingency. application was denied by SSS. SSS observed that Ibarra was already
granted benefits under the same illness and his physical examination
Some total permanent disabilities: showed no progression of his illness. Accordingly, Ortega filed
1. Complete loss of sight of both eyes before Social Security Commission (SSC) a petition alleging that SSS
2. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankles or wrists ignored the fact that his attending physician diagnosed him of
3. Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs progressed illness.
4. Brain injury resulting to incurable imbecility or insanity
5. Such cases as determined and approved by SSS After exhausting administrative remedies, SSC took cognizance of
the petition and after hearing on the merits, it denied Ortega’s claim

for entitlement to total permanent disability. occupations.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the SSC order. c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard contract or
employment between the seafarer and the manning agency
Issue: Whether or not Ibarra can claim under Social Security Law for which, together with the foreign ship owner, act as employers.
work connected disability claims insofar as it relates to a d. An employee of a foreign government, international
demonstration of disability to perform his trade and profession organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality based in
the Philippines, which entered into an administrative
Ruling: No. The conclusion that Ibarra is not entitled to total agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino workers
permanent disability benefits under the Social Security Law was
reached after petitioner was examined not just by one but four SSS Coverage of Employers:
physicians, namely, Dr. Juanillo Descalzo III, Dr. Carlota A. Cruz- a. An employer, or any person who uses the services of another
Tutaan, Dr. Jesus S. Tan and Dr. Rebecca Sison. person in business, trade, industry or any undertaking. A social, civil,
professional, charitable and other non-profit organization which hire
The initial physical examination and interview revealed that Ibarra the services of employees are considered “employers”
had slight limitation of grasping movement for both hands. b. A foreign government, international organization or its wholly-
According to Dr. Descalzo, this finding was not enough to grant an owned instrumentality such as an embassy in the Philippines, may
extension of benefit since Ibarra had already received benefits enter into an administrative agreement with the SSS for the
equivalent to 30% of the body. Responding to the allegation that the coverage of its Filipino employees
April 2000 physical examination was performed in a short period of
time, the doctor credibly explained that petitioner’s movements Coverage of Self-Employed Persons
were already being monitored and evaluated from a distance as part A self-employed person, regardless of trade, business or occupation,
of the examination of his extremities in order to minimize with an income of at least P1,000 a month and not over 60 years old,
malingering and overacting. should register with the SSS.

Indeed, the evidence indicates that petitioner’s condition at the time Included but not limited to are the following self-employed persons:
material to the case does not fall under the enumeration in the self-employed professionals; business partners, single proprietors
above-quoted provisions of the Social Security Law. Moreover, as and board directors; actors, actresses, directors, scriptwriters and
correctly held by the appellate court, the proviso of such provisions news correspondents who do not fall with the term “employee”;
on the percentage degree of disability applies when there is a professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys; farmers and
related deterioration of the illness previously considered as partial fisherfolks; and workers in the informal sector such cigarette
permanent disability. In this case, there is dearth of evidence on the vendors, watch-your-car-boys, hospitality girls, among others.
proposition that petitioner’s array of illnesses is related to
Generalized Arthritis and Partial Ankylosis of the specific body parts. Voluntary coverage
Ibarra’s reliance on jurisprudence on work-connected disability Coverage of Separated Members
claims insofar as it relates to a demonstration of disability to A member who is separated from employment or ceased to be self-
perform his trade and profession is misplaced. employed/OFW/non-working spouse and would like to continue
paying his/her contributions.
Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under the Social
Security Law for benefits are not the same as to their nature and Coverage of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)
purpose. A Filipino recruited in the Philippines by a foreign- based employer
for employment abroad; having a source of income in the foreign
On the one hand, the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code govern country; and permanent resident in a foreign country.
compensability of work-related disabilities or when there is loss of
income due to work-connected or work-aggravated injury or illness. Coverage of non-working Spouse of SSS Members
On the other hand, the benefits under the Social Security Law are A person legally married to a currently employed and actively paying
intended to provide insurance or protection against the hazards or SSS member who devotes full time in the management of household
risks of disability, sickness, old age or death, inter alia, irrespective of and family affairs may be covered on a voluntary basis provided
whether they arose from or in the course of the employment. And there is approval of the working spouse. The person should never
unlike under the Social Security Law, a disability is total and have been a member of the SSS. The contributions will be based on
permanent under the Labor Code if as a result of the injury or 50% of the working spouse’s last posted monthly salary credit but in
sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation no case shall it be lower than P1,000.
for a continuous period exceeding 120 days regardless of whether
he loses the use of any of his body parts. Effectivity of coverage
Compulsory coverage
Compulsory coverage 1. For an employee – on the first day of employment
Coverage of Employees: 2. For an employer – on the first day the employer hires employee/s.
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old a. Employer is given 30 days from date of employment to
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is covered report the employee for coverage to SSS.
starting Sept. 1, 1993. 3. For self-employed – upon payment of first valid contribution, in
A household-helper is any person who renders domestic or case of initial coverage.
household services exclusively to a household employer such
driver, gardener, cook, governess, and other similar

Voluntary coverage age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently
1. For OFW – upon first payment of contribution, in case of initial incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally;
coverage. and
2. For non-working spouse – upon first payment of contribution. (3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member.
3. For separated member – on the month the person resumed
payment of contribution. Note: There is no definition in law for “gainful employment”

ATTY GCC: Gainful employment? Revised IRR of GSIS Act of 1997 (2010)
What if the employer did not report the employee on the first day? Rule I:
Does it mean that the coverage will start on the day the employer 1.23. GAINFUL OCCUPATION- Any productive activity that provides
report the employee for the coverage? NO, it will start in the 1st day income of at least equal to the prevailing minimum compensation of
of employment. If the employer did not pay in the SSS, what SSS government employees.
would do is file a case against the employer. GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
Defined as any productive activity that provides the member with
Appeal from SSC income at least equal to the minimum compensation of government
SECTION 1. Appeals. — Any order, resolution, award or employees (IRR, Sec 1.17)
decision of the Commission, in the absence of an appeal therefrom
as herein provided, shall become final and executory fifteen (15) Sec. 8 (k) Beneficiaries — The dependent spouse until he or she
days after the date of notification to the parties, and judicial review remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted,
thereof shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of
aggrieved thereby has exhausted his/her remedies the member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children
before the Commission. The Commission shall be deemed to be a shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the share of the legitimate,
party to any judicial action involving any such decision, and may be legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the
represented by an attorney employed by the Commission, or when absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted
requested by the Commission, by the Solicitor General or any public children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children
prosecutor. A party may appeal the decision of the Commission shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the benefits. In
to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court as the case may their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary
be. Provided, that no appeal shall be brought by the SSS beneficiaries of the member. In the absence of all of the foregoing,
against the decision of the Commission. any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary
In either appeal, no bond shall be required. If no appeal is perfected beneficiary.
within the periods hereinabove fixed, the order, resolution, award,
or decision of the Commission shall become final and may be SSC v. Azote, GR No. 209741, April 15, 2015
executed as provided herein. Facts: In 1994, Edgardo submitted his SSS Form E-4 with his wife
Edna and their children as beneficiaries. When he died in 2005,
SECTION 2. How Appeal Taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a Edna tried to claim the death benefits as the wife of a deceased
verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Section member but it was denied. It appears from the SSS records that
5, Rule 43 or a verified petition for review Edgardo had another set of SSS Form E-4 in 1982 where his former
on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, as the case may wife Rosemarie and their child were designated as
be, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and beneficiaries. Edna did not know that Edgardo was previously
on the Commission. married to another woman. She then filed for a petition before the
SSS, and notice was sent to Rosemarie but she made no
No appeal shall act as a supersedeas or a answer. The SSC dismissed Edna’s petition because the SSS Form E-
stay of the order of the Commission unless the Commission 4 designating Rosemarie and her child was not revoked by Edgardo,
itself, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, shall so order. and that she was still presumed to be the legal wife as Edna could
(Rule VII, The 2016 Rules of Procedure of the Social Security not proved that Edgardo’s previous marriage was annulled or
Commission, [May 25, 2016]) divorced.

ATTY GCC: Issue: W/N Edna is entitled to the SSS benefits as the wife of a
When there is a claim filed in the SSS, nobody is allowed to get deceased member
attorney’s fees. It is prohibited. It is only allowed if there is a hearing
at the SSC. So kung adto ka sa branch or region, you are not allowed. Ruling: No. The law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was RA
In fact you will be penalized for exacting attorney’s fees. What is 8282. Applying Section 8(e) and (k) thereof, only the legal spouse of
only allowed is only up to 10% and only if there is an award. Dili the deceased-member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the
pwede i-advance. latter’s SS benefits. Here, there is a concrete proof that Edgardo
contracted an earlier marriage with another individual as evidenced
Dependents; Beneficiaries; Primary beneficiaries by their marriage contract.
Sec. 8 (e) Dependents — The dependents shall be the following:
(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the Since the second marriage of Edgardo with Edna was celebrated
member; when the Family Code was already in force. Edna, pursuant to Art 41
(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate of the Family Code, failed to establish that there was no impediment
child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not reached or that the impediment was already removed at the time of the
twenty-one years (21) of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of celebration of her marriage to Edgardo. Edna could not adduce

evidence to prove that the earlier marriage of Edgardo was either establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Since
annulled or dissolved or whether there was a declaration of petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary and because the
Rosemarie’s presumptive death before her marriage to Edgardo. deceased has no legitimate child, it follows that the dependent
What is apparent is that Edna was the second wife of Edgardo. illegitimate minor children of the deceased shall be entitled to the
Considering that Edna was not able to show that she was the legal death benefits as primary beneficiaries. The SSS Law is clear that for
spouse of a deceased-member, she would not qualify under the law a minor child to qualify as a “dependent” the only requirements are
to be the beneficiary of the death benefits of Edgardo. that he/she must be below 21 years of age, not married nor gainfully
employed.
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. In this case, the minor illegitimatechildren Ginalyn and Rodelyn were
828229 to examine available statistical and economic data to ensure born on 13 April 1996 and 20 April 2000, respectively. Had the
that the benefits fall into the rightful beneficiaries. legitimate child of the deceased and Editha survived and qualified as
a dependent under the SSS Law, Ginalyn and Rodelyn would have
Extent of the required ‘dependency’ under the SS Law been entitled to a share equivalent to only 50% of the share of the
Although a husband and a wife are obliged to support each other, said legitimate child. Since the legitimate child of the deceased
whether one is actually dependent for support upon the other predeceased him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary
cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone (SSS v. Aguas) beneficiaries of the deceased, are entitled to 100% of the benefits.

Further, Aguas pointed out that a wife who left her family until her SSS v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 164790, August 29, 2008
husband died and lived with other men, was not dependent upon Facts: The member here is Antonio and the legitimate wife is Gloria.
her husband for support, financial or otherwise, during the entire Sometime after their marriage, they had children. After several
period. years, she went to US. She divorced Antonio and married an
American. Antonio also remarried here. When he died the second
Signey v. SSS, et. Al., GR No. 173582, January 28, 2008 wife claimed the benefits, Gloria also wanted to claim the benefits.
Facts: Rodolfo Signey Jr. a member of the SSS, died on May 21, 2001.
In his member’s records, he had designated petitioner Issue: Is Gloria entitled to the benefits?
Yolanda Signey as primary beneficiary and his four children with her
as secondary beneficiaries. Petitioner filed a claim for death Ruling: As found by both the SSC and the CA, the divorce obtained

benefits with the public respondent SSS. She revealed in her SSS by respondent against the deceased Antonio was not binding in this
claim that the deceased had a common-law wife, Gina Servano, with jurisdiction. Under the Philippine law, only aliens may obtain
whom he had two minor children. divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national
law. The divorce was obtained by Gloria while she is still a Filipino
Petitioner’s declaration was confirmed when Gina herself filed a citizen and thus covered by the policy against absolute divorces.
claim for the same death benefits which she also declared that both Hence, it did not sever her marriage ties with Antonio.
she and petitioner were common-law wives of the deceased and
that Editha Espinosa was the legal wife. In addition, in October However, although respondent was the legal spouse of the
2001, Editha also filed an application for death benefits with the SSS deceased, she is still disqualified to be his primary beneficiary under
stating that she was the legal wife of the deceased. the SS Law. She fails to fulfill the requirement of dependency upon
her deceased husband Antonio.
SSS denied the death benefit claim of the petitioner and found that
the marriage between the deceased and the petitioner is null and A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot
void because of a prior subsisting marriage contracted between the be said to be “dependent for support” upon the husband, absent
deceased and Editha as confirmed by the local civil registry of Cebu. any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that the
However, it recognized Ginalyn and Rodelyn, the minor children of husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death,
the deceased with Gina, as the primary beneficiaries under the SSS it would be safe to presume that she was dependent on the husband
Law. for support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for
herself.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition with the SSC in which she

attached a waiver of rights executed by Editha whereby the latter SSS v. Favila, G.R. No. 170195, March 28, 2011
waived any/all claims from Social Security System (SSS), among Facts: Teresa averred that when Florante died on February 1, 1997,
others due to the deceased RodolfoSigney Sr. SSC affirmed the his pension benefits under the SSS were given to their only minor
decision of the SSS. The SSC gave more weight to the SSS field child at that time, Florante II, but only until his emancipation at age
investigation and the confirmed certification of marriage showing 21. Believing that as the surviving legal wife she is likewise entitled
that the deceased was married to Editha, than to to receive Florante's pension benefits, Teresa subsequently filed her
the aforestated declarations of Editha in her waiver of rights. claim for said benefits before the SSS. The SSS, however, denied the
claim.
Issue: Does petitioner have a superior legal right over the SSS
benefits as against the illegitimate minor children of the deceased? Issue: Whether Teresa is dependent upon Florante for support in
order for her to fall under the term “dependent spouse” under

Ruling: No. Section 8(e) and (k) of R. A. No. 8282 is very clear. Hence, section 8 (k) of RA 1161
we need only apply the law.
Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should Ruling: No. According to Sec. 8 of SS Law, it is plain that for a spouse

to qualify as a primary beneficiary under paragraph (k) thereof, Section 22 (b), par. 2, of Republic Act No. 1161, or the SSS Law,
he/she must not only be a legitimate spouse but also a dependent as expressly provides that the right to institute the necessary action
defined under paragraph (e), that is, one who is dependent upon the against the employer may be commenced within twenty years from
member for support. 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.
Here, there is no question that Teresa was Florante's legal wife.
What is in issue, however, is whether Teresa is dependent upon The provision is clear that the period of prescription commences to
Florante for support in order for her to fall under the term run only upon the discovery of the violation, which took place in
"dependent spouse" under Section 8 (k) of RA 1161. Aside from 1985. When the complaint was filed on August 14, 1985, less than
Teresa's bare allegation that she was dependent upon her husband one year had passed since private respondent discovered the
for support and her misplaced reliance on the presumption of delinquency. Therefore, the claim was timely instituted.
dependency by reason of her valid and then subsisting marriage
with Florante, Teresa has not presented sufficient evidence to Note: Benedicto v. Santos- criminal actions for violation of SS Law
discharge her burden of proving that she was dependent upon her prescribes in 4 years.
husband for support at the time of his death.
Consent of SSS on filing of criminal action
"dependent" - one who derives his or her main support from Is the consent of SSS required before any criminal case may be filed?
another [or] relying on, or subject to, someone else for support; not No, because Section 28 (i) states that a “criminal action arising from
able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform anything without the a violation of the provisions of this Act may be commenced by the
will, power or aid of someone else. SSS or the employee concerned either under this Act or in
appropriate cases under the Revised Penal Code.”
Right to Institute
Sec. 22- “The right to institute the necessary action against the Lack of criminal intent and good faith as defenses
employer may be commenced within twenty (20) years from the Tan vs. Ballena, GR No. 168111, July 4, 2008
time the delinquency is known or the assessment is made by the Facts: Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingo and Robert Lim were sued by
SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the case may be.” the employees of their dissolved company Footjoy Industrial
Corporation for breaching the SSS law after failing to pay the
Note: “action”- refers to administrative and civil action (not membership dues. They allege that they must not be held
necessarily civil in nature but actions which can be instituted before accountable since the company’s downfall was caused by
SSC). Also, it does not refer to criminal actions. economic conditions and a fire that caused some ruins. The
DOJ supported this petition and reversed the resolution in favor of
Lo vs. CA, G.R No. 128667, December 17, 1999 petitioner.
Facts: Private respondent’s application for retirement was denied
because the SSS records showed that he became a member only in The Court of Appeals however rejected the DOJ resolution and ruled
1983, and contributions in his favor were remitted only from that petitioners should be held liable regardless of a show of good
October 1983 to September 1984. As private respondent knew that faith or lack of intent in the commission of the crime.
SSS contributions were deducted from his salary since compulsory
SSS coverage took effect in 1957, he filed a petition with the Social Issue: Whether or not good faith and lack of intent are material in
Security Commission against Jose Lo and his son Rafael Lo, who took the application of a special law
over the management of the company.
Ruling: No. Special laws like the SSS Law are mala prohibita or are
The Commission upheld private respondent’s claim and ordered deemed wrong only due to positive law. Intent is only material in
petitioner and Jose Lo to remit to the SSS the unpaid contribution in the commission of crimes characterized as mala in se which are
favor of private respondent, including penalties and charges. inherently evil or publicly condemned.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, Only inquiry is: has the law been violated? Thus, the petitioners’
which affirmed the decision of the Commission. When the appellate admission in the instant cases of their violations of the provisions of
court denied his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this the SSS Law is more than enough to establish the existence of
petition for review by certiorari. He contended that the lower court probable cause to prosecute them for the same.
erred in ruling that the claim had not yet prescribed. Petitioner
claimed that Payment of SS premium, as stated in the Decision, is an ATTY GCC:
obligation created by law hence, without need of demand, it In practice, payment can be a ground for the issuance by SSS of an
becomes due on the date when such payment should be made. Affidavit of Desistance. But it depends on the court’s discretion
Hence, under Article 1150 [of the Civil Code], the right of action to whether or not to dismiss the case.
recover unremitted SS premium accrues on the date it is payable What happens is that the court will set 2-3 hearings, but SSS will not
and may be brought beginning such date. appear. Case will be dismissed for non prosequitur.

Issue: Is the institution of the action by private respondent within
the prescribed period?

Ruling: Yes. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and affirmed the
decision of the Court of Appeals.

Prescriptive Period (Act No. 3326) premium contributions and penalties therefore.?
SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the Ruling: Yes. The Court though finds no need to resort to statutory
following rules: construction. Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law imposes
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by penalty on:
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (1) The managing head;
(b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more (2) Directors; or
than one month, but less than two years; (3) Partners, for offenses committed by a juridical
(c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two person
years or more, but less than six years; and
(d) after twelve years for any other offence punished by The said provision does not qualify that the director or partner
imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, should likewise be a “managing director” or “managing partner.”
which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by The law is clear and unambiguous.
municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Although a corporation once formed is conferred a juridical
SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the personality separate and distinct from the persons comprising it, it is
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not but a legal fiction introduced for purposes of convenience and to
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution subserve the ends of justice. The concept cannot be extended to a
of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. point beyond its reasons and policy, and when invoked in support of
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are an end subversive of this policy, will be disregarded by the courts.
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. “Managing head”
Mendoza vs. People, GR No. 183891, August 3, 2010
Penalty/Crime Prescriptive period Facts: The information charging petitioner reads:
“That sometime during the month of August 1998 to July 1999, in
Only fine, imprisonment for not more than 1 the City of Illigan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
After 1 year Honorable Court, the said accused, being then the proprietor of
month, or both
Summa Alta Terra Industries, Inc., duly registered employer with the
Imprisonment for more than 1 month but Social Security System (SSS), did then and there willfully, unlawfully
After 4 years
less than 2 years and feloniously fall and/or refuse to remit the SSS premium
contributions in favor of its employees amounting to P421, 151.09 to
Imprisonment for 2 years or more but less the prejudice of his employees.
After 8 years Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 22(a) and (d) in relation to Sec.
than 6 years
28 of Republic Act No. 8282, as amended.
Imprisonment for 6 years or more After 12 years
Petitioner contended about an alleged congenital infirmity in the
Treason 20 years information in that he was charged as “proprietor” and not as
director.
Offenses against any law administered by After 5 years
the Bureau of Internal Revenue Issue: Whether the managing head or president or general manager
of a corporation is not among those specifically mentioned as liable
Violations of municipal ordinances After 2 months in Section 28 (f).

Is a director liable? Ruling:
Garcia vs. SSC, GR. No. 170735, December 17, 2007 The term “managing head” in section 28(f) is used, in its broadest
connotation, not to any specific organizational or managerial
Facts:
nomenclature. To heed petitioner’s reasoning would allow
Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law provides the following:
unscrupulous businessmen to conveniently escape liability by the
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an
creative adoption of managerial titles.
association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its

managing head, directors or partners shall be liable to the penalties
Novation
provided in this Act for the offenses.
SSS v DOJ , GR No. 158131, August 8, 2007

Facts: The Martels are the directors of SENCOR against whom SSS
Petitioner challenges the finding of the Court of Appeals that under
filed a complaint against non payment of contributions. Martels
Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law, a mere director or officer of
an employer corporation, and not necessarily a “managing” director offered to assign to SSS a parcel of land in Tagaytay which was
accepted subject to the condition that the Martels will settle their
or officer, can be held liable for the unpaid SSS premium
obligation either by way of dacion en pago or through cash
contributions.
settlement within a reasonable time.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner, as the only surviving director of
Martels made another offer to settle this time through computer
Impact Corporation, can be made solely liable for the corporate
related services. SSS filed another complaint. The Martels argue that
obligations of Impact Corporation pertaining to unremitted SSS
SSS is estopped because it already accepted the offer of assignment

as payment. The relationship converted into an ordinary debtor- II. RA 8291- T HE G OVERNMENT S ERVICE
creditor relationship. INSURANCE S YSTEM A CT

Issue: Does novation serve to negate the prosecution of a criminal
Jurisdiction
liability under RA 1161, as amended?
SEC 30. Settlement of Disputes- The GSIS shall have original and

exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes arising under this Act and
Ruling: Not here.
any other laws administered by the GSIS.
This Court first recognized the possibility of applying the concept of

novation to criminal cases in People v. Nery, involving a case for
The Board may designate any member of the Board, or official of the
Estate. In that case, the Court observed that although novation is
GSIS who is a lawyer, to act as hearing officer to receive evidence,
not one of the means recognized by the Revised Penal Code to
make findings of fact and submit recommendations, together with
extinguish criminal liability, it may "prevent the rise of criminal
all documentary and testimonial evidence to the Board within thirty
liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic
(30) working days from the time the parties have closed their
transaction," provided the novation takes place before the filing of
respective evidence and filed their last pleading. The Board shall
the Information with the trial court.
decide the case within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the

hearing officer’s findings and recommendations. The cases heard
The facts of this case negate the application of novation. In the first
directly by the Board shall be decided within thirty (30) working days
place, there is, between SENCOR and petitioner, no original contract
from the time they are submitted by the parties for decision.
that can be replaced by a new contract changing the object or

principal condition of the original contract, substituting the person
GSIS has original & exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising
of the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the rights of the
under RA 8291 with respect to:
creditor. The original relationship between SENCOR and petitioner is
a. Coverage
defined by law - RA 1161, as amended - which requires employers
like SENCOR to make periodic contributions to petitioner under pain b. Entitlement to benefits
of criminal prosecution. Unless Congress enacts a law further c. Collection & payment of contributions
amending RA 1161 to give employers a chance to settle their d. Any other matter related to any or all of the foregoing which is
overdue contributions to prevent prosecution, no amount of necessary for their determination
agreements between petitioner and SENCOR (represented by
respondent Martels) can change the nature of their relationship and
the consequence of SENCOR's non-payment of contributions.
Who are covered?
Compulsory for all employees:
• Appointive or elective
• Whether temporary, casual, permanent or contractual with e-e
relationship
• Who are receiving basic pay or salary but not per diems,
honoraria or allowances; and
• Who have not reached the compulsory retirement of 65 years.

ATTY GCC: Those under job orders are not covered. There’s no er-ee
relationship.

When coverage takes effect?
Upon the employee’s assumption to duty pursuant to a valid
appointment or election and oath of office.

Are elective officials still covered after their term of office expires?
• Compulsory coverage shall cease upon expiration of term
• They have the option to continue with life insurance so long as
they will pay both the employee and employer shares.
• On social security coverage, said official shall continue to be a
member and shall be entitled to benefits that provide for
contingencies (death, disability or separation) subject to
satisfaction of eligibility conditions.

Who are not covered?
a. Employees who have separate retirement schemes under
special laws and are therefore covered by their respective
retirement laws, such as the members of the Judiciary,
Constitutional Commissions, and other similarly situated
government officials;
b. Uniformed members of AFP & PNP including BJMP;

c. Those who are not receiving basic pay or salary without the will, power, or aid of someone else. (A.M. No. 10019-
d. Contractuals who have no employer and employee Ret. February 22, 2001)
relationship with the agencies they serve
e. Services rendered by Consultants Contingencies compensable
• Retirement
ATTY GCC: • Separation (New)
• “other similarly situated government officials”- such as • Unemployment (New)
Fiscals of the National Prosecution Service, Labor Arbiters • Disability
• Judges and Justices are only covered for purposes of life • Survivorship
insurance, beyond that, they are not covered. • Death (Life Insurance and Funeral)
• “not receiving basic pay or salary”- such as Barangay
Officials ATTY GCC:
• Compensation of “Consultants” is in the form of honoraria; There is no life insurance in SSS but there is life insurance in GSIS.
their payment is not fixed There is a new law for the National Prosecution Service, so Fiscals
• “Regular Members” are those compulsorily covered under are now covered by Separate Retirement Law. They are not covered
GSIS, while “Special members” are those covered only for by GSIS, but they are covered in so far as life insurance.
life insurance. Separation benefit and Unemployment benefit are not in the SSS.
There is no maternity benefit in GSIS.
Creditable Service
Valdez v GSIS, G.R. No. 146175, June 30, 2008 Separation benefit
Facts: Petitioner would want SC to reverse CA ruling rejecting his A cash payment of 18 times the Basic Monthly Pension at time of
assertion that his services rendered in the MECO, MMSU, PHIVIDEC separation and a life pension to start at the age of 60 will be given to
and as OIC Vice-Governor of Ilocos Norte should be credited in the those who separate from the service with at least 15 years service
computation of his retirement benefits. and are below 60 years of age.
Under old PD 1146, separated member will have to wait until he is
Ruling: Only full time services with compensation are credited for 60 years of age to receive any separation benefit.
retirement purposes. Valdez; services in Mariano Memorial State
University, Phil. Veterans Investment Dev. Co (PHIVIDEC) and as OIC
of the VG of Ilocos Norte were rendered part-time without
compensation as defined in the law. Who are eligible?
Types:
COMPENSATION — The fixed monthly salary received by an a. Rendered at least 3 years but less than 15 years
employee excluding allowances, per diems, bonuses, overtime pay, • cash payment equivalent to 100% of Average Monthly
honoraria and other emoluments not integrated into the fixed Compensation for every year of service payable upon
monthly salary. reaching 60 or upon separation whichever comes later if
not receiving monthly pension from permanent total
Is part-time service included in the computation of total service disability
rendered? b. Rendered at least 15 years & who is below 60 at time of
• As a rule, all full-time service with compensation from date resignation/separation
of original appointment or election shall be computed for • cash payment equivalent to 18 times the basic Monthly
purpose of determining retirement benefits. Pension payable upon separation plus monthly pension
• “service” shall mean full-time service w/ compensation. starting 60
Part – time service w/ compensation shall be converted to
full – time equivalent. IRR, Rule II, Sec. 2.5
• Part-time shall be converted using a 40-hour per week and Member separated for cause (e.g dismissal)
52-week per year as basis. a. Automatically forfeit
b. Unless terms of resignation or separation provide otherwise
Who are dependents?
(a) The legitimate spouse dependent for support; Member separated not for cause
(b) Any legitimate, legitimated and/or legally adopted child, a. Shall continue to be member & entitled subject to qualification
including any illegitimate child, who is unmarried, not gainfully & other prescription
employed, who has not attained the age of majority or being at the
age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of self-support due Unemployment benefit
to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to age of majority; The benefit is paid when a permanent employee is involuntary
and separated from the service as a result of the abolition of his office or
(c) The parents’ dependent upon the member for support. position usually resulting from reorganization.

Meaning of dependent? Who is eligible?
“Dependent” means “one who derives his or her main support from Permanent employee who has paid 12 monthly contributions.
another”. Meaning, relying on, or subject to, someone else for
support; not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform anything Duration of benefit- depends on length of service ranges from 2

mos. to a maximum of 6 mos.
During the investigation, it was established that Cesar had left his
Equivalent of benefit- 50% of the average monthly compensation family to live with another woman with whom he also begot
children. He failed to provide support for his family.
Options- Those who have more than 15 years service may either
avail of retirement or separation benefits, as the case may be. Dispositive portion says:
WHEREFORE, Cesar V. Lledo, Branch clerk of court of RTC,
Survivorship benefit Branch 94, Quezon City, is hereby DISMISSED from the
Those granted to surviving and qualified beneficiaries of the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave
deceased member or pensioner to cushion them against the adverse credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch
economic, psychological and emotional loss resulting from the death or instrumentality of the government, including any
of a wage earner or pensioner. government- owned or controlled corporation. This case is
REFERRED to the IBP Board of Governors pursuant to
Primary Beneficiaries Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The legitimate spouse, until he/she remarries, and the
dependent children. Issue: May a government employee, dismissed from the service for
Secondary Beneficiaries cause, be allowed to recover the personal contributions he paid to
a. The dependent parents; and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)?
b. The legitimate descendants
In the absence of secondary beneficiaries, the legal heirs. Ruling: Yes. He should be allowed to recover his personal
contributions. Neither P.D. No. 1146 nor RA 8291 contains any
ATTY GCC: provision specifically dealing with employees dismissed for cause
In the IRR, it includes Cohabitation or Common-law relationships. and the status of their personal contributions. Thus, there is no
While SSS is silent on the matter. inconsistency between Section 11 (d) of Commonwealth Act No.
186, as amended, and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1146, and, subsequently,
Disability R.A. No. 8291.
Any loss or impairment of the normal functions of the physical or The inevitable conclusion then is that Section 11 (d) of
mental faculties of a member, which reduces or eliminates his Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, continues to govern cases
capacity to continue with his current gainful occupation or engage in of employees dismissed for cause and their claims for the return of
any other gainful occupation (IRR, Sec. 1.18) their personal contributions.
The said law provides-
• Evaluation of disability as a contingency is vested solely in II.—Retirement Insurance Benefit Xxx xxx xxx “(d) Upon
GSIS (IRR, Sec. 9.3.1) dismissal for cause or on voluntary separation, he shall be
• General condition for entitlement is that the disability was entitled only to his own premiums and voluntary deposits,
not due to misconduct, notorious negligence, habitual if any, plus interest of three per centum per annum,
intoxication or willful intention to kill himself or another compounded monthly.”
(IRR, Sec. 9.3.2)
GSIS laws are in the nature of social legislation, to be liberally
construed in favor of the government employees. The money
Causes for non-entitlement of Disability benefit:
subject of the instant request consists of personal contributions
Forfeiture of disability benefits if member refuses or deliberately
made by the employee, premiums paid in anticipation of benefits
fails to:
expected upon retirement. The occurrence of a contingency i.e. his
a. Have himself/herself medically treated by a physician when
dismissal from the service prior to reaching retirement age, should
required by the GSIS; or
not deprive him of the money that belongs to him from the outset.
b. Take the prescribed medication; or
To allow forfeiture of these personal contributions in favor of the
c. Have himself/herself confined in a hospital without justifiable
GSIS would condone undue enrichment.
reason, when such confinement is required by the GSIS; or

d. Avail himself/herself of such rehabilitation facilities as may be
Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, Cesar is entitled to the return
duly recommended by the GSIS and made available for him/her; or
of his premiums and voluntary deposits, if any, with interest of 3%
e. Observe such precautionary and/or preventive measures as
per annum, compounded monthly.
prescribed by a physician or expressly required of him/her to

prevent the aggravation or continuance of his/her disability
COA Disallowances
f. Report on his/her re-employment.
GSIS vs. COA, G.R. No. 138381, November 10, 2004

Facts: On account of the consolidated cases of the parties involved,
Entitlement to Personal Contributions
the Court promulgated a decision, on the one hand, ordering the
Lledo vs. Lledo, AM No. P-95-1167, February 9, 2010
refund of amounts representing fringe benefits granted to GSIS
Facts: Supreme Court dismissed from the service Atty. Cesar V. Lledo
employees; and on the other, affirming the disallowance in excess of
who was a former branch clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of
that approved by the COA which was later on deducted by GSIS from
Quezon City, Branch 94. Cesar’s wife, Carmelita, had filed an
the employees’ retirement benefits.
administrative case against him, charging the latter with

immortality, abandonment, and conduct unbecoming a public
The GSIS retirees then filed a motion for amendatory and
official.
clarificatory judgment (“amendatory motion”) asking the court

whether the GSIS may lawfully deduct any amount from their member to the System. This is to ensure maintenance of the GSIS’
retirement benefits in light of Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291. fund reserves in order to guarantee fulfillment of all its obligations
The court then ruled that the said provision provides the Exemption under RA 8291.
of Retirement benefits from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. As settled
in several cases, retirement pay accruing to a public officer may not Nonetheless, it may be recovered not by deducting on the
be withheld and applied to his indebtedness to the government. retirement pay, but on the other assets of the respondents.
Hence, the GSIS employees retained their retirement benefits
including those which were properly disallowed by the COA. Prescriptive Period
SECTION 30. Prescription. — Claims for benefits under Republic Act
Issue: Whether the COA disallowances, representing loyalty and No. 8291, except for life insurance and retirement, shall prescribe
service cash awards of the respondents as well as housing allowance after four (4) years from date of contingency. ||| (Revised
in excess of that approved by the COA, could be legally deducted Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS
from their retirement benefits? Act of 1997), Revised IRR of RA 8291, [2010])

Ruling: No. SEC. 39 on Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien SECTION 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien
partly states: xxx Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the GSIS,
xxx The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and benefits paid,
benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties
Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy of all kinds.
or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or xxx
administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the
disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this
including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy
occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or
duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with this position or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA)
work except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members,
is in favor of the GSIS. including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or
occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or
It is clear from the provision that COA disallowances cannot be duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or
deducted from benefits under RA 8291, as the same are explicitly work except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is
made exempt by law from such deductions. Retirement benefits in favor of the GSIS.
cannot be diminished by COA disallowances in view of the clear
mandate of the foregoing provision. It is a basic rule in statutory GSIS v. NLRC, et. Al GR No. 180045, November 17, 2010
construction that if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, Facts: Respondents were hired DNL Security Agency. By virtue of the
it must be given its literal meaning and applied without service contract entered into by DNL Security and petitioner
interpretation. This is what is known as plain- meaning rule or verba Government Service Insurance System on May 1, 1978, respondents
legis. were assigned to petitioners Tacloban City office, each receiving a
monthly income of P1,400.00. Sometime in July 1989, petitioner
GSIS interpretation of Section 39 that COA disallowances have voluntarily increased respondents monthly salary to P3,000.00.
become monetary liabilities of respondents to the GSIS and
therefore fall under the exception stated in the law is wrong. No In February 1993, DNL Security informed respondents that its service
interpretation of the said provision is necessary given the clear contract with petitioner was terminated. This notwithstanding, DNL
language of the statute. A meaning that does not appear nor is Security instructed respondents to continue reporting for work to
intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be petitioner. Respondents worked as instructed until April 20, 1993,
places therein by construction. but without receiving their wages; after which, they were
terminated from employment.
That retirement pay accruing to a public officer may not be withheld
and applied to his indebtedness to the government has been settled Respondents filed with the NLRC a complaint against DNL Security
in several cases citing Cruz v. Tantuico, Jr. where the Court similarly and petitioner for illegal dismissal, separation pay, salary
declared that benefits under retirement laws cannot be withheld differential, 13th month pay, and payment of unpaid salary.
regardless of the petitioner’s monetary liability to the government.
The LA found that respondents were not illegally terminated from
Thus, “monetary liability in favor of GSIS” refers to indebtedness of employment because the employment of security guards is
the member to the System other than those which fall under the dependent on the service contract between the security agency and
categories of pecuniary accountabilities exempted under the law. its client. However, considering that respondents had been out of
work for a long period, and consonant with the principle of social
Such liability may include unpaid social insurance premiums and justice, the LA awarded respondents with separation pay equivalent
balances on loans obtained by the retiree from the System, which to one (1) month salary for every year of service, to be paid by DNL
do not arise in the performance of his duties and are not incurred Security. Because DNL Security instructed respondents to continue
relative to his work. The general policy, as reflected in our working for petitioner from February 1993 to April 20, 1993, DNL
retirement laws and jurisprudence, is to exempt benefits from all Security was also made to pay respondents wages for the period.
legal processes or liens, but not from outstanding obligations of the

DNL Security filed a motion for reconsideration, while petitioner petitioner impliedly approved the extension of respondents services.
appealed to the NLRC. NLRC treated DNL Securitys motion for Accordingly, petitioner is bound by the provisions of the Labor Code
reconsideration as an appeal, but dismissed the same, as it was not on indirect employment. Petitioner cannot be allowed to deny its
legally perfected. It likewise dismissed petitioners appeal, having obligation to respondents after it had benefited from their services.
been filed beyond the reglementary period. So long as the work, task, job, or project has been performed for
petitioners benefit or on its behalf, the liability accrues for such
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of services. The principal is made liable to its indirect employees
the Rules of Court before the CA. The CA affirmed the NLRC decision. because, after all, it can protect itself from irresponsible contractors
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was by withholding payment of such sums that are due the employees
denied. Hence, this petition. and by paying the employees directly, or by requiring a bond from
the contractor or subcontractor for this purpose.
Issue: Is GSIS jointly and severally liable with DNL Security Agency
for payment of the unsubstantiated amounts of Salary Differentials? Petitioner's liability, however, cannot extend to the payment of
separation pay. An order to pay separation pay is invested with a
Ruling: Yes. The fact that there is no actual and direct employer- punitive character, such that an indirect employer should not be
employee relationship between petitioner and respondents does made liable without a finding that it had conspired in the illegal
not absolve the former from liability for the latters monetary claims. dismissal of the employees.
When petitioner contracted DNL Securitys services, petitioner
became an indirect employer of respondents, pursuant to Article It should be understood, though, that the solidary liability of
107 of the Labor Code petitioner does not preclude the application of Article 1217 of the
Civil Code on the right of reimbursement from its co-debtor.
ART. 107. Indirect employer. The provisions of the immediately
preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership,
association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts III. RA 7699: P ORTABILITY L AW
with an independent contractor for the performance of any work,
task, job or project. When applicable?
A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old age and other
After DNL Security failed to pay respondents the correct wages and benefits by reason of non-fulfillment of the required period of
other monetary benefits, petitioner, as principal, became jointly and service may be able to qualify for such benefits by making use of the
severally liable, as provided in Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor period during which he rendered services to a private employer and
Code, which state: for which contributions were paid to SSS.
Approved May 1, 1994
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with another person for The Act instituted a limited portability scheme in the GSIS and SSS by
the performance of the formers work, the employees of totalizing the workers’ creditable services or contributions in each of
the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, the Systems.
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this
Code. Portability- refers to transfer of funds for the benefit and account of
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to a worker who transfers from one system to the other (RA 7699, Sec.
pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this 2 [b])
Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable

with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to
ATTY GCC:
the extent of the work performed under the contract, in
There is no actual transfer. They only get a certification and present
the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees
it to the new system they are under.
directly employed by him.

Totalization- refers to the process of adding up the periods of
ART. 109. Solidary liability. The provisions of existing laws
creditable services or contributions in each of the Systems for
to the contrary notwithstanding, every employer or
purposes of eligibility and computation of benefits, for purposes of
indirect employer shall be held responsible with his
totalization, overlapping periods of membership shall be considered
contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any
once only (Sec. 3)
provision of this Code. For purposes of determining the

extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall
ATTY GCC:
be considered as direct employers.
If you are already eligible in one particular system, then totalization

will not apply.
Petitioners liability covers the payment of respondent's salary

differential and 13th month pay during the time they worked for
Overlapping period- refers to the period during which a worker
petitioner. In addition, petitioner is solidarily liable with DNL
contributes simultaneously to GSIS and SSS.
Security for respondents unpaid wages from February 1993 until
April 20, 1993. While it is true that respondents continued working • The totalization of service credits is only resorted to when
for petitioner after the expiration of their contract, based on the the retiree does not qualify for benefits in either or both
instruction of DNL Security, petitioner did not object to such of the Systems.
assignment and allowed respondents to render service. Thus, • If a person is qualified to receive benefits granted by GSIS,

and if such right has not yet been exercised, then this IV. PD 442, AS AMENDED A ND PD 626, AS AMENDED :
principle does not apply. E MPLOYEES C OMPENSATION L AW

Gamogamo vs. PNOC, G.R No. 141707, May 7, 2002
It is a program provided for in Arts. 166-208-A (now 172-215) of the
Facts: Petitioner worked with DOH and served for 14 years of
Labor Code, as amended, where a fund (State Insurance Fund) is
service. After that, he worked in PNOC and then after working for
established through premium payments exacted from employers,
several years, PNOC was privatized. and from which employees and their dependents, in the event of
According to petitioner, there is a mandate under RA 7699, that his work-connected disability or death, may promptly secure adequate
period of years in DOH shall be tacked in or shall be added with the
income benefit, and medical or related benefits.
number of years with PNOC.

ATTY GCC:
Issue: Is petitioner correct?
To be safe in citing the law, say “Labor Code, as amended.

Presumption of Compensability
Ruling: No. The totalization of service credits is resorted to only
The first law- Act No. 3428, otherwise known as the Workmen’s
when the retiree does not qualify for benefits in either or both the
Compensation Act (took effect- June 10, 1928)
Social Security System (SSS) and the Government Service Insurance

System (GSIS).
The Act works upon the presumption of compensability (which
In this case, petitioner was qualified to receive benefits granted by
means that if the injury or disease arose out of and in the course of
the GSIS, if such right has not yet been exercised. In any case,
employment, it is presumed that the claim for compensation falls
petitioner’s fourteen years of service with the DOH may not remain
within the provisions of the law). The employee need not present
uncompensated because it may be recognized by the GSIS pursuant
any proof of causation. It is the employer who should prove that the
to Section 12 of the Government Service Insurance Act of 1977, as
illness or injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.
may be determined by the GSIS.

Theory of Aggravation
Since petitioner may be entitled to some benefits from the GSIS, he
All that the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires to entitle
cannot avail of the benefits under RA NO. 7699.
claimants to its benefits is a showing that the nature of the

deceased's work and duties did aggravate his illness as in this case.
ATTY GCC:
(Belmonte v. Workmen's Compensation Commission)
Portability of benefits, portability law, limited portability scheme,

and totalization of benefits are used interchangeably.
Abandonment

Presumption of compensability and Theory of Aggravation was
The law talks about two systems, GSIS and SSS. A person entitled to
abandoned by the present Labor Code, substituted by a system
the portability scheme can be a member of GSIS or SSS who does
based on social security.
not qualify by reason of non-fulfilment of the required period of

service. They can make use of the period during which he rendered
The purpose of this innovation was to restore a sensible equilibrium
service to an employer and when he was a member of SSS. It can
between the employer’s obligation to pay workmen’s compensation
also apply vice versa.
and the employee’s right to receive reparation for work-connected

death or disability.
Note: Justices and judges cannot avail of the retirement portability

scheme because their retirement is covered by special laws.
Doctrine of Occupational Disease; Theory of Increased Risk
In the present law, for the sickness and resulting disability or death
to be compensable, the claimant must prove either of two things:
a. Doctrine of Occupational Disease – that the sickness was the
result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the Rules
on Employee’s Compensation
b. Theory of Increased Risk – if the sickness was not so listed, that
the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant’s
working conditions

The diseases listed in Annex “A” are presumed to be work-related
but not every death resulting therefrom automatically entitles a
claimant to death benefits. Annex “A” requires that, for the
statutory presumption of causal relation to arise, it must be
established beforehand that the listed disease was contracted under
certain working conditions.
The following conditions must be satisfied:
a. The employee’s work must involve the risks described therein
b. The disease was contracted as a result of the employee’s
exposure to the described risk
c. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and
under such other factors necessary to contract it

d. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the ATTY GCC:
employee. Same prohibition in SSS (RA 8282, Sec. 17) but allows not more than
10% of benefits awarded for a lawyer who appears as a counsel in a
Liberality in Interpretation case heard by Social Security Commission.
Notwithstanding the abandonment of the presumption of
compensability established by the old law, the present law has not Important Concepts
ceased to be an employees’ compensation law or a social Injury – Any harmful change in the human organism from any
legislation. accident arising out of and in the course of employment (i.e.,
wound, laceration or bone fracture)
Liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still Requisites:
prevails, and the official agency charged by law to implement the a. Employee must have been injured at the place where work
constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal requires him;
attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for b. Employee must be performing his official functions; and
compensability, especially in light of the compassionate policy c. If injured elsewhere, employee must have been executing an
towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances. order of the employer

A humanitarian impulse, dictated by no less than the Constitution Accident – Unforeseen, for which the injured party is not legally
itself under the social justice policy, calls for a liberal and responsible
sympathetic approach to legitimate appeals of disabled public
servants. Arising out of employment – Upon consideration of all
circumstances, a causal connection between the condition under
ATTY GCC: which the work is required to be performed and resulting injury;
I noticed that in the Supreme Court, if we talk about a particular refers to origin or cause of accident
disease, the first thing to do is to look in Annex “A” if it is listed as an
occupational disease. If the cause is not in Annex A, but it is linked “in the course of” –refer to time, place and circumstances under
then it is compensable. when accident takes place.
So what the Supreme Court does is look at Annex A first. If
immediate cause is not one those, then proceed with Theory No. 2 Examples:
“Theory of Increased Risk”. a. Taking lunch or coffee break or resting when having
reasonable connection with employment
Art. 203, Labor Code (Prohibition against demand or charge for b. Employed at public street and died while crossing street
fee); Compared to SSS to go to unsafe place to relieve himself because no toilet
Under Labor Code: facilities was provided by employer
ART. 203. Prohibition. - No agent, attorney or other person pursuing c. Attempting to save life of a co-worker
or in charge of the preparation or filing of any claim for benefit d. Death of a teacher travelling home from school
under this Title shall demand or charge for his services any fee, and
any stipulation to the contrary shall be null and void. The retention General Rule
or deduction of any amount from any benefit granted under this Off-the-premises injury rule (street peril rule) – injuries or those
Title for the payment of fees for such services is prohibited. occasioned by street perils, or in going to and coming from the place
Violation of any provision of this Article shall be punished by a fine of work, in the absence of special circumstances, are excluded from
of not less than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand the benefits
pesos, or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than
one year, or both, at the discretion of the court. Exceptions
1. Going to and coming from workplace rule – act of employee in
Under SSS: going to or coming from workplace must be continuing act
SECTION 17. Fee of Agents, Attorneys, etc. — No agent, attorney or (employee has not diverted by any other activity) and he had
other person in charge of the preparation, filing or pursuing any not departed from usual route.
claim for benefit under this Act shall demand or charge for his
services any fee, and any stipulation to the contrary shall be null and 2. Direct premises rule- employee is proceeding to or from his
void. The retention or deduction of any amount from any benefit work on the premises of his employer (i.e., construction
granted under this Act for the payment of fees for such services is foreman from barangay where he inspected work being done,
prohibited: Provided, however, That any member of the Philippine soldier must go where his company is stationed)
Bar who appears as counsel in any case heard by the Commission
shall be entitled to attorney's fees not exceeding ten percent (10%) 3. Ingress-egress or proximity rule- where employee is about to
of the benefits awarded by the Commission, which fees shall not be enter or about to leave premises of employer by way of
payable before the actual payment of the benefits, and any exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress.
stipulation to the contrary shall be null and void. Any violation of the
provisions of this Section shall be punished by a fine of not less than 4. Shuttle bus or extra-premises rule- the shuttle bus or similar
five hundred pesos (P500.00) nor more than five thousand pesos vehicle provided by employer to transport employees in going
(P5,000.00), or imprisonment for not less than six (6) months nor to and coming from place of work is considered an extension of
more than one (1) year, or both, at the discretion of the court. work premises (applies even if employee is using his own car or
vehicle)

the same occurred in any of the following situations, in addition to
5. Special errand rule- injury sustained on errand beyond office those provided under item II of Circular No. 03-709 dated 22 July
hours, within or without the premises of employer is 2009:
compensable (applies also to activities authorized by employer 1. The employee was at his assigned/designated workplace or at a
such as intramurals, ball games, golf games, field trips, picnics) place where his work requires him to be;
2. The employee was executing an order from the employer
Injuries sustained during vacation leave regardless of the time and place of the incident or in the
General rule- relationship is not deemed suspended during the performance of his official functions; or
vacation leave with pay. 3. The employee was “going to or coming from” his workplace,
subject to the existing guidelines of the same.
Member of military and policemen while “on leave”
When compensable? ECC BOARD RESOLUTION No. 14-02-15
a. On “rest and recreation” which is part of soldier’s military COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES OR DEATH OF THE SOLDIERS AND
activities after an actual combat ad duly certified by POLICEMEN WHEN RESPONDING TO A CRIME SITUATION WHEN
commanding officer THEY ARE NOT AT THEIR ASSIGNED POST
b. On “academic leave” and approved and paid by military
To declare the compensability of injuries, and its resulting disability
When not compensable? or death, sustained by the soldiers and policemen when responding
While on sick leave, maternity, paternity or graduation leave, or to a crime situation or when performing their sworn duties as law
when on AWOL status. enforcers while they are not at their assigned posts.

The 24-Hour Duty Doctrine: the concept of workplace cannot always ECC BOARD RESOLUTION No. 15-04-15
be literally applied to a soldier on active status who, for all intents DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY
and purposed, is on a 24-hour official duty status, subject to military EMPLOYEES AT PLACES OF RECREATION WITHIN THE EMPLOYERS’
discipline and law and call of his superior officers at all times, except PREMISES
when he is on vacation leave status; this doctrine should not be
sweepingly applied to all acts and circumstances but only to those To declare the compensability of injuries by employees on the places
which, although not on official line of duty, are nonetheless basically of recreation within the premises of the employer, within an
police service in character. allowable period;
Paragraph 6.1 of Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068, dated August 5,
GSIS vs. Mecayer, GR No. 156182, April 13, 2007 1993, is hereby modified or amended to read as follows:
It had been established that respondent’s husband, a drive at the “Personal Comfort Doctrine”
PNP Administration Division and Holding Center, Camp Crame, was 6.1 Acts performed by an employee:
in the place where his work required him to be and in the course of a. within the time and space limits of his employment to
performing his official function when he was shot to death on July minister to personal comfort such as satisfaction of his
12, 1992. thirst, hunger or other physical demands
b. while on the places of recreation within the employer’s
As a driver, SPO2 Mecayer may not be doing anything the whole day premises, or
while he was on duty excerpt to wait for his superior’s instructions c. to protect himself from extreme temperature in a place
and yet he was still considered as performing his official function. within the employer’s premises
This is so because drivers are required to remain on call and subject shall be deemed incidental to his employment and injuries which the
to orders by his superiors during his duty and could not use his time employee suffered in the performance of such acts shall be
effectively and gainfully for his own purposes. Thus, even if SPO2 considered compensable and arising out of and in the course of
Mecayer was just waiting around and in the process of consuming a employment.
bottle of beer would not preclude the work- connected character of ECC CIRCULAR NO. 15-01-20
his death because he was still performing his official function at the ADVISORY ON THE DEFINITION OF MISSING PERSONS UNDER EC
time of his death. In fact, a certification 14 dated March 7, 2001, BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 14-07-20
issued by the PNP showed that SPO2 Mecayer’s death was in the
line of duty. Advisory is issued in relation to the implementation of Board
Resolution No. 14-07-20 (Guidelines on the Grant of EC Benefits due
Thus, SPO2 Mecayer’s death is compensable as it happened right in to Calamity or Fatal Event Amending for this Purpose Paragraph 5 of
the place where he was required to and while he was on duty Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068):
notwithstanding the fact that the killing was personal in nature. The following are the series of events which should be considered in
the grant of EC benefits:
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 12-03-08 1. The word “missing” refers to unknown fate or there is no trace of
DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE DUE whereabouts of worker, employee and uniformed personnel while
TO ASSAULT WHEN THE SASME OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE he/she is in the performance of his/her duties during calamities or
PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THE fatal events.
FACT THAT THE MOTIVE IS PERSONAL IN NATURE 2. The worker, employee or uniformed personnel was not seen or
heard from after the lapse of four years from the occurrence of the
To declare the compensability of death of an employee due to incident.
assault notwithstanding the fact the motive is personal in nature if 3. The disappearance of the worker, employee or uniformed

personnel gives rise to presumption of death. time the same occurred."
4. The death of the worker, employee or uniformed personnel arises
out of and in the course of employment. This Commission RESOLVES AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, to declare
the compensability of injuries, and its resulting disability or death,
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 10-03-45 sustained by stay-in local employees in their quarters regardless of
CLARIFYINNG THE RULES ON PRESCRIPTION UNDER P.D 626, AS the time of its occurrence except when the disability or death was
AMENDED occasioned by the employee's intoxication, willful intention to injure
or kill himself or another, or notorious negligence as provided under
When a claimant filed a claim for disability or death benefits before Article 172 of PD 626.
the Systems either under the SSS law of the GSIS law, the claim for
the same benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Law should Compensability
be considered as filed. GSIS v CA, GR No. 124208, January 28, 2008
In this case, Osteosarcoma is not listed as an occupational disease in
The filing of disability or death benefits either under the SSS law or the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation. Hence, it is
the GSIS law within 3 years from the time the cause of action supposed to be upon the claimant or private respondents to prove
accrued would stop the running of the prescription period under P.D by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting Osteosarcoma
626, as amended. was increased by the working conditions of the late Abraham.
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
EC claims must be filed within a period of three years from: mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
• In case of sickness - from the time the employee was
unable to report for work; The records show that Abraham failed to present evidence to
• In case of injury - from the time of the incident; establish that the development of his ailment was traceable to his
• In case of death - from the date of death working conditions in the Philippine Navy, the now defunct
Philippine Constabulary and the PNP.
The filing of disability or death benefits either under the SSS law or
the GSIS law within three years from the time the cause of action Further, private respondents' allegation in their petition for review
accrued would stop the running of the prescriptive period. with the CA that Abraham, as a rifleman in the Philippine Navy, may
have been exposed to elements like a virus which could have
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 11-04-10 contributed to his ailment does not satisfy the requirement of
SETTING THE RECKONING DATE OF THE THREE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE substantial evidence. The rule is that awards of compensation
PERIOD IN THE EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION cannot rest on speculations and presumptions, as the claimant must
CLAIMSM FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY (PTD) prove a positive thing.

In the case of ECC vs. Sanico, the Supreme Court held that: The application of the rules would mean that absent any proof that
a. "Permanent total disability means disablement of an the risk of contracting the ailment was increased by the working
employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work conditions of the late Abraham, private respondents would not be
of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to entitled to compensation.
perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his]
mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean Considering, however, that it is practically undisputed that under the
absolute helplessness; present state of science, the proof referred by the law to be
b. "In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is presented by the deceased private respondent claimant was
compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work unavailable and impossible to comply with, the condition must be
resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity; deemed as not imposed.
c. "The prescriptive period for filing compensation claims
should be reckoned from the time the employee lost his Before the amendment, the law simply did not allow compensation
earning capacity, i.e., terminated from employment, due for the ailment of respondent. It is under this set-up that the Raro
to his illness and not when the same first became case was decided. However, as the ECC decision noted, the law was
manifest." amended and now "the present law on compensation allows certain
diseases to be compensable if it is sufficiently proven that the risk of
This Commission RESOLVES that the prescriptive period for filing contracting is increased by the working conditions." It, therefore,
compensation claims should be reckoned from the time the now allows compensation subject to requirement of proving by
employee lost his earning capacity. sufficient evidence that the risk of contracting the ailment is
increased by the working conditions.
ECC Board Resolution Nos.12-01-02
DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES AND ITS RESULTING As earlier noted, however, in the specific case of respondent, the
DISABILITY OR DEATH SUSTAINED BY STAY-IN LOCAL EMPLOYEES requirement is impossible to comply with, given the present state of
WITHIN THE QUARTERS FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYERS scientific knowledge. The obligation to present such an impossible
evidence must, therefore, be deemed void. Respondent, therefore,
"Bunkhouse Rule" - ". . . where the employee is required to stay in is entitled to compensation, consistent with the social legislation's
the premises or in quarters furnished by the employer, injuries intended beneficial purpose.
sustained therein are in the course of employment regardless of the


Alano v. ECC, GR No. L-48594, March 16, 1998 substances that aggravated her respiratory disease.
Facts: The deceased was waiting for a bus to the school where she
works as a principal. However, while waiting, she was bumped by a While item 17, Annex "A" of the Amended Rules of Employee's
mini van that resulted to her death. Compensation considers lung cancer to be a compensable
occupational disease, it likewise provides that the employee should
The petitioner alleges that the deceased's accident has "arisen out be employed as a vinyl chloride worker or a plastic worker.
of or in the course of her employment."
In this case, however, Elma did not work in an environment involving
The respondent Commission reiterates its views and contends that the manufacture of chlorine or plastic, for her lung cancer to be
the present provision of law on employment injury is different from considered an occupational disease. There was, therefore, no basis
that provided in the old Workmen's Compensation Act (Act 3428) for the CA to simply categorize her illness as an occupational disease
and is "categorical in that the injury must have been sustained at without first establishing the nature of Elma's work. Both the law
work while at the workplace, or elsewhere while executing an order and the implementing rules clearly state that the given alternative
from the employer." conditions must be satisfied for a disease to be compensable.

Issue: Compensable? Limitation to compensability
Section 1. Limitation- No compensation shall be allowed to the
Ruling: Yes. We rule in favor of the petitioner. It is not disputed that employee or his dependents when the injury, sickness, disability or
the deceased died while going to her place of work. She was at the death was occasioned by any of the following:
place where, as the petitioner puts it, her job necessarily required (1) His intoxication
her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. There was (2) His willful intention to injure or kill himself or
nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the another; or
place of the accident. She was there because her employment (3) His notorious negligence
required her to be there.
Intoxication- person’s condition in being under the influence of
Lorenzo v GSIS, GR No. 188385, October 2, 2013 liquor or prohibited drugs to the extent that his acts, words or
The wife of the deceased died due to Cardio-Respiratory Arrest due conduct are impaired visibly as to prevent him from physically and
to Terminal Leukemia. Petitioner, being the surviving spouse, mentally engaging in the duties of his employment
claimed for Employees Compensation death benefits from the GSIS.
It was denied on the ground that the GSIS Medical Evaluation and Notorious negligence- something more than mere or simple
Underwriting Department (MEUD) found Rosario's ailments and negligence; deliberate act to disregard own personal safety
cause of death, Cardio-respiratory Arrest Secondary to Terminal
Leukemia, a non-occupational disease contemplated under PD 626, GSIS vs. Angel, GR No. 166863, July 20, 2011
as amended. With the law upon the facts, we conclude that the death of Sgt.
Angel did not result from an accident which is compensable under
Sickness, as defined under Article 167 (1) Chapter I, Title II, Book IV Presidential Decree No. 626. It was on the contrary occasioned by an
of the Labor Code refers to "any illness definitely accepted as an intentional or designed act which removes the resulting death from
occupational disease listed by the Employees' Compensation the coverage of the State Insurance Fund. It is unexpected that the
Commission, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is discussion below by the GSIS, the ECC and the Court of Appeals,
increased by working conditions. veered away from the indispensable antecedent that the death must
be caused by accident and, instead focused on the requirement that
It is well to stress that the principles of "presumption of the death must arise out of or in the course of employment. Such
compensability" and "aggravation" found in the old Workmen's that, the ECC denied compensability by saying:
Compensation Act is expressly discarded under the present
compensation scheme. Clearly the deceased was not performing his official duties
at the time of the incident. On the contrary, he was being
As illustrated in the Raro case, the new principle being applied is a investigated regarding his alleged involvement in a
system based on social security principle; thus, the introduction of pilferage/gunrunning case when he was found in his cell,
"proof of increased risk." As further declared therein: an activity which is foreign an unrelated to his
The present system is also administered by social employment as a soldier. Thus, the protective mantle of
insurance agencies — the Government Service Insurance the law cannot be extended to him as the documents
Syatem and Social Security System — under the appear bereft of any showing to justify causal connection
Employees Compensation Commission. The intent was to between his death and his employment.
restore a sensible equilibrium between the employer's
obligation to pay workmen's compensation and the Coverage formula
employee's right to receive reparation for work- "arising out of" – upon consideration of all circumstances, a causal
connected death or disability. connection between the condition under which the work is required
to be performed and resulting injury, refers to the origin or cause of
GSIS v Capacite, GR No. 199780, September 23, 2014 the accident
The deceased was a DAR employee who died of lung cancer. The CA
justified the compensability of her disease by saying that Elma had "in the course of employment" – refers to time, place and
been exposed to voluminous dusty records and other harmful circumstances under which the accident takes place.

24-hour-duty doctrine brought about largely by the conditions in her husband’s job as
The concept of workplace cannot always be literally to a soldier on grocery man at the commissary store. Failing in this aspect, we are
active status whom for all intents and purposes, is on a 24 hour constrained to rule that her husband’s illness which eventually
official duty status, subject to military discipline and law and call of caused his demise was not compensable.
his superior officers at all times, except when he is on vacation leave
status; this doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and In addition, granting petitioner’s claim will set a bad precedent
circumstances but only those which, although not on official line of considering that 23 years elapsed from the time her husband
duty, are nonetheless basically police service in character stopped working at the commissary store up to the time he died. If
we were to grant it, we might unduly burden the funds of the ECC
Valeriano v. ECC, GR No. 136200, June 8, 200 and jeopardize it with a flood of unsubstantiated claims. Besides, the
The Court ruled that petitioner’s injuries and consequent disability Court cannot remain oblivious to the possibility that, within that 23-
were not work-connected and thus not compensable. year period, other factors intervened to cause the death of
petitioner’s husband. Petitioner was thus under an even greater
Petitioner was not able to demonstrate solidly how his job as a compulsion to proffer evidence to negate this possibility and
firetruck driver was related to the injuries he had suffered. That he establish the causal connection between her husband’s work and his
sustained the injuries after pursuing a purely personal and social death. The gap between his separation from employment in 1977
function – having dinner with some friends – is clear from the and his death in 2000 was a gaping hole in petitioner’s claim.
records of the case.
Jacang vs. ECC, GR No. 151893, October 20, 2005
His injuries were not acquired at his work place, nor were they “Takayusa’s Disease” is not listed as an occupational disease. But is it
sustained while he was performing an act within the scope of his scientifically linked to PTB, a listed occupational disease.
employment or in pursuit of an order of his superior.
Thus, even if the “Takayusa’s Disease” is not listed perhaps for being
The Court also ruled that the 24-hour duty doctrine cannot be rare and still mysterious, there can be no question that being
applied to petitioner’s case, because he was neither at his assigned associated with PTB which is a listed occupational disease, the death
work place nor in pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met of petitioner’s husband in compensable under Annex A of the
an accident. But the more important justification for the Court’s Amended Rules on Employees Compensation.
decision 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 Any doubt on this matter has to be interpreted in favor of the
sustained his injuries. employee, considering that P.D. No. 626 is a social legislation. In this
case, enough substantial evidence has been shown to convince us
Can a claim for benefit be defeated by the mere fact of separation that the surviving spouse of the deceased worker is entitled to
from service? compensation under said P.D No. 626, because the records show his
GSIS v Cuanang, GR No. 158846, June 3, 2004 ailment and death have been associated with PTB, a listed
In the instant case, the wife of the respondent died a year after her compensable disease.
retirement. Clearly, the period between her retirement and demise
was less than one year. Indeed, if a death which occurred almost Bunao vs. SSS, GR No. 159606, December 13, 2005
four and one half years after retirement was held to be within the There is no dispute that renall cell cancer is not listed as an
coverage of the death benefits under PD 626, as in the Manuzon occupational disease under Annex “A” of the Rules on Employees’
case, with more reason should a death which occurred within one Compensation. As such, petitioner has the burden of proving by
year after retirement be considered as covered under the same law. substantial evidence, the causal relationship between her husband’s
A claim for benefit for such death cannot be defeated by the mere illness and his working conditions. Substantial evidence means such
fact of separation from service. relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.
Further, we agree with the pronouncements of the Court of Appeals
that there was substantial evidence to support respondent's claim. For petitioner’s claim to prosper, she must submit such proof as
Hence, the degree of proof required under PD 626 was satisfied, i.e., would constitute a reasonable basis for concluding either that the
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as conditions of Artu’s employment caused the ailment or that such
adequate to support a conclusion." Probability and not ultimate working conditions had aggravated the risk of contracting that
degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings ailment.

In the case at bar, the requisite substantial evidence came from the Petitioner alleged that the deceased marine engineer was exposed
expert opinion of Dr. Arsenio A. Estreras Jr., a Diplomate in Internal to leaded petrol and petroleum products that contain various
Medicine who issued the Death Certificate. chemicals like hydrogen, benzene and lead which are health hazards
because of their carcinogenicity. She claims that most of these
Aquino vs. SSS, GR No. 149256, July 21, 2006 chemicals precipitated kidney disease, kidney cancer and liver
Congestive heart failure is not included. Hence, petitioner should cancer.
have shown proof that the working conditions in the commissary
store where her husband worked aggravated the risk of contracting Unfortunately, such bare allegations and vague excerpts on cancer
the ailment. Petitioner should have adduced evidence of a do not constitute such evidence that a reasonable mind might
reasonable connection between the work of her deceased husband accept as adequate to support a conclusion that there is indeed a
and the cause of his death or that the progression of the disease was causal relationship between the illness of the deceased and his

working conditions. Awards of compensation cannot rest on of self-support due to physical or mental defect which is
speculations and presumptions. The claimant must prove a positive congenital or acquired during minority.
proposition.
Primary beneficiaries shall have priority claim to death benefits over
There is no showing that the progression of the deceased was secondary beneficiaries. Whenever there are primary beneficiaries,
brought about largely by the conditions in Artu’s job. Petitioner did no death benefit shall be paid to his secondary beneficiaries.
not present medical history, records or physician’s report in order to
substantiate her claim that the working conditions on board the Bartolome vs. SSS, GR No. 192531, November 12, 2004
vessels M/T Palawan, M/T Guimaras and M/T Buenavista increased Issue: Are the parents of a covered legally adopted employee
the risk of contracting renal cell cancer. considered secondary beneficiaries, and thus entitled, in appropriate
cases, to receive the benefits under ECP?
Castor-Garupa vs. ECC, GR No. 158268, April 12, 2006
In as much as petitioner’s disease was not listed as an occupational Ruling: In the same vein, the term “parents” in the phrase
disease, it is incumbent upon her to adduce substantial proof that “dependent parents” in the afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor
would show that the nature of her employment or working Code is used and ought to be taken in its general sense and cannot
conditions increased the risk of End Stage Renal Disease or Chronic be unduly limited to “legitimate parents” as what the ECC did.
Glomerulonephritis. The evidence presented by petitioner shows
that her Chronic Glomerulonephritis that led to the End Stage Renal The phrase “dependent parents” should, therefore include all
Disease was caused by a streptococcal infection. She attached the parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or
Physician’s Certification and the employer’s Certification which by adoption. When the law does not distinguish, one should not
clearly established that she suffered hypertension as early as 1994 distinguish. Plainly, “dependent parents” are parents whether
and displayed sudden loss of appetite, edema and general fatigue in legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by adoption, who are in need
1998 consistent with symptoms of Chronic Glomerulonephritis. of support or assistance.

Petitioner is a practicing doctor in a public rural hospital from Prescriptive Period
January 1, 1979 until she underwent a kidney transplant on Marcg Art. 201: 3 years from the time the cause of action accrued
11, 1999. As a doctor who was in direct contact with patients, she Where to file? SSS for private, and GSIS for public.
was more exposed to all kinds of germs and bacteria, thus, When a cause of action accrues? From the date of occurrence of the
increasing the risk of contracting glomerulonephritis. Given the contingency
nature of her work, and considering further that resident physicians
work for extended hours, the likelihood of petitioner being infected ATTY GCC:
by the streptococcus bacterium is, without a doubt, increased. We Basta SSS - 20 years, except disability which is 10 years. Under the
thus find that the probability of petitioner contracting chronic SS Law, the 20-year period does not cover criminal action.
glomerulonephritis in her workstation has been substantiated. Basta GSIS- 4years, except life insurance or retirement benefits,
which do not prescribe
Benefits Basta ECC - 3 years
1. Medical services, appliances and supplies
2. Rehabilitation services In SSS, Lo v. CA emphasized the reckoning point of the 20 year
3. Temporary total disability benefit prescriptive period. SC said it should be reckoned from the discovery
4. Permanent total disability benefit of the delinquency (so bisag unsa na kadugay pero wala pa nabal.an
5. Permanent partial disability benefit ang delinquency, d mu run ang period)
6. Death benefit and
7. Funeral benefit Emphasizing this because this is connected under SSS. In the case of
Beneficiaries Ortega v. CA the SC made a distinction between disability falling
The beneficiaries shall be either primary or secondary, and under SS law and disability under labor code (EC Law)
determined at the time of employee’s death.
To emphasize, there is disability whether there is permanent or
The following beneficiaries shall be considered primary: temporary under SS depende sa body parts/system involved.
a. The legitimate spouse living with the employee at the time of Without taking into consideration whether the employee has is
the employee’s death until he remarries; and earning/ was performing gainful employment.
b. Legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or acknowledge natural
children, who are unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over Under EC Law, if there is a particular body part injured, there is a
21 years of age, or over 21 years of age provided he is corresponding number of months that the employee will fail to
incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to physical or perform gainful employment.
mental defect which is congenital or acquired during minority.
So the key point/element under EC to reckon the 3-year prescriptive
The following beneficiaries shall be considered secondary: period is when the time the employee lost his earning capacity (the
a. The legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the employee time when he was terminated) without referring to the body part or
for regular support; system injured/ suffered (but there must be a relation between the
b. The legitimate descendants and illegitimate children who are disease and the loss of earning capacity or termination)
unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age, or
over 21 years of age provided he is incapacitated and incapable

Obra vs. SSS, GR No. 147745, April 9, 2003
We agree with the petitioner that her claim for death benefits under
the SSS law should be considered as the Employees’ Compensation
claim itself. This is but logical and reasonable because the claim for
death benefits which petitioner filed with the SSS is of the same
nature as her claim before the ECC.

Furthermore, the SSS is the same agency with which Employees’
Compensation claims are filed. As correctly contended by the
petitioner, when she filed her claim for death benefits with the SSS
under the SSS law; she has already notified the SSS of her
employees’ compensation claim, because the SSS is the very same
agency where claims for payment of sickness/disability/death
benefits under P.D No. 626 are filed.

ATTY GCC:
I submit, this ruling will apply only if claims under SSS and EC are the
same in nature.

ECC vs. Sanico, GR No. 134028, Dec. 17, 1999
This Court has consistently ruled that "disability should not be
understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of
earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of
an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of
similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform,
or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment
could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness."

This Court has also held that: In disability compensation, it is not the
injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work
resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. The
prescriptive period for filing compensation claims should be
reckoned from the time the employee lost his earning capacity, i.e.,
terminated from employment, due to his illness and not when the
same first became manifest.

Indeed, a person's disability might not emerge at one precise
moment in time but rather over a period of time. In this case,
private respondent's employment was terminated on 31 December
1991 due to his illness, he filed his claim for compensation benefits
on 9 November 1994. Accordingly, private respondent's claim was
filed within the three-year prescriptive period under Article 201, LC.

Defenses against EC Claim
• Not work-connected or not occupational
• Limitation (intoxication, etc.)
• No notice was given to employer under:
Article 212. Notice of Sickness, Injury or Death-
Notice of sickness, injury or death shall be given
to the employer by the employee or by his
dependents or anybody on his behalf within five
days from the occurrence of the contingency. No
notice to the employer shall be required if the
contingency is known to the employer or his
agents or representatives.
• Prescription

ATTY GCC:
Don’t be confused:
IRR of ECC- 1987
Rules of Procedure of EC - 1995

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Finals Reviewer 2017 (Based On Pointers) - Phil

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Finals Reviewer 2017 (Based On Pointers) - Phil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian

Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 1

You might also like