Pointers in Agrarian Reform and other social legislation:

I. SS ACT OF 1997

1. JURISDICTION; DACION EN PAGO IMPLEMENTATION (SSS
V ATLANTIC GULF)

SSS VS ATLANTIC GOLF

-atlantic filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages against SSS before RTC of Batangas City
-from the averment in the complaint, private respondents
are seeking to implement the deed of assignment which
they had drafted and submitted to SSS sometime in July
2001, pursuant to SSSs letter addressed to AG&P dated 23
April 2001 approving AG&P and SEMIRARAs delinquencies
through dacion en pago, which as of 31 March 2001,
amount to P29,261,902.45.
When the deed of assignment was submitted sss did not
sign it because there was a conflict as to the amount of
delinquencies. Mao na adto sila sa court to compel sss to
sign the dacion en pago. Sss filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground lack of jurisdiction. Citing section 5, RTC
dismissed.
-ca reversed RTC decision and held that the subject of
complaint(kuwang and slide)

ISSUE: which body has the jurisdiction to entertain the
controversy arising from the non-implementation of a
dacion en pago agreed upon by the parties as a means of
settlement of private respondents liabilities?

SC; from the allegations of respondents complaint, it
readily appears that there is no longer dispute with
respect to respondents accountability to SSS. Respondent,
had in fact admitted their delinquency and offered to
settle them by way of dacion en pago subsequently
approved by the SSS in Resolution no. 270s-2001.

- The controversy lies in the non-implementation of the
approved and 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 specific
performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation
beyond the competence of the Commission.

Court Review. The decision of the Commission upon any
disputed matter may be reviewed both upon the law and
the facts by the Court of Appeals. For the purpose of such
review, the procedure concerning appeals from the
Regional Trial Court shall be followed as far as practicable
and consistent with the purposes of this Act. Appeal from
a decision of the Commission must be taken within fifteen
(15) days from notification of such decision. If the decision
of the Commission involves only questions of law, the
same shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court. No appeal
bond shall be required. The case shall be heard in a
summary manner, and shall take precedence over all
cases, except that in the Supreme Court, criminal cases
wherein life imprisonment or death has been imposed by
the trial court shall take precedence. No appeal shall act as
a supersedeas or a stay of the order of the Commission
unless the Commission itself, or the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, shall so order.

Notice here that the law uses the word appeal. Appeal
from the decision of the commission. So whether it is by
petition for review, verified petition for review or a notice
of appeal.

The Old Rule says it is by mere notice of appeal but in the
recent Rule, it is by verified petition for review.
Notice of appeal: (1) you only have one piece of paper (2)
Material date when you receive the copy of the decision
and (3) you furnish the opposing council correctly, then
notice of appeal is complied. The problem of the notice of
appeal is once the notice of appeal is perfected the entire
records will all be elevated to the higher court, in this case
the court of appeals. But there will be a problem there.
why? Because the SSC is a quasi-judicial body, its not the
same with regular courts.
But if it is verified petition of review, the entire records will
remain at the SSC. What we will file at the CA is the
petition for review which will contain the facts of the case,
the material dates, the issues, the arguments but you need
to attach true copies of the relevant documents that you
cite or you will cite in your petition for review.
Criminal offenses for violations of the law are within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.
2. REP V ASIAPRO - WEEKLY STIPENDS OR EXCESS IN
SERVICE SURPLUS; E-E

REPUBLIC VS ASIAPRO CCOPERATION
-respondent Asiapro, as cooperative is composed of
owners-members. Its primary objective is to provide
savings and credit facilities and to develop other livelihood
services for its owners-members.

Are members of the cooperative covered compulsorily
under SSS?

-In the discharge of the primary objective, respondent
entered into several service contracts with Stanfilco- a
division of DOLE Phil Inc. and a company based in
Bukidnon. The owners-members do not receive
compensation or wages from the respondent cooperative,
Instead, they receive a share in the service surplus which
the cooperative earns from different areas of trade it
engages in such as the income derived from the said
service contracts with stanfilco. The owners-members get
their income from the service generated by the quality and
amount of service they rendered which is determined by
the board of directors of the cooperative.
-in order to enjoy the benefits under the SS Law of 1997
the owners-members of the cooperative who were
assigned to stanfilco requested the service of the latter to
register them with petitioner SSS as self-employed and to
remit their contributions as such.
-SSS sent a letter to stanfilco that based on the service
contract it executed with stanfilco, the cooperative is a
manpower contractor supplying employees for stanfilco
and for that reason, it is an employer of its owners-
members working with stanfilco. Thus, respondent
cooperative should register itself with SSS as an employer
and make the corresponding report and remittance of
prenimum contributions in accordance with SSL.
WHO SHOULD DETERMINE E-E?
-since the existence of EE rel. between the respondent
coop and its owners-members was put in issue and
considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS law is
predicated on the existence of such relationship, it
behooves the petitioner SSC to determine if there is really
an EE rel existing between respondent coop and its
owners-members.

The same four-fold test, the same elements.
Independent contracting and labor only employees = not
covered by SS law.
-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC
provides that:

ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the
Commission:

Xxx xxxx xxx
6. except claims for employees compensation, SS,
medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising
from EE relations including those of persons in domestic or
household service including an amount exceeding P5000
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.

-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, it
would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof,
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by
the system. Hence, the question on the existence of EE
relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage
of SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the
NLRC and falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is
primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising
under SSL of 1997.

-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ff
elements are considered:
(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay
kapuy type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the
employers control of the employees conduct, not only as
to the result of the work to be done but also as to the
means and methods to accomplish.

Connect this to the case of Co vs People
SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.

Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed
from the supposed employee against the supposed
employer. That there was no EE relationship. The ruling
was final and executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang
kadtong supposed employer in the fiscals office for
violation of the SS law. Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC.
Ni.file ug motion to quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. And the court sustained, saying that there is
no more need to determine the EE relationship because
that has already been determined by the Labor Courts that
there was absence of EE relationship. And since SS law
coverage is predicated on the existence then there should
be no more criminal case to be filed against the supposed
employer.
SC: the mandatory coverage

Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory
ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the
ruling on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not
end the issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which
may be different to that of the Labor Courts.

SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)
1. expressly provided in the service contract that
respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the
selection and engagement of the owners-members as well
as team leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.
2. The weekly stipends or the so called share in the
service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its
owners-members WERE IN REALITY WAGES, as the same
were equivalent to an amount not lower than that
prescribed by the labor laws, rules and regulations
including the wage order applicable to the area and
industry or the same shall not be lower than the prevailing
rates of wages. It cannot be doubted then that those
stipends or share in the service surplus are indeed wages
because these are given to the owners-members as
compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to respondent
cooperatives client, stanfilco.
If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag
dividends sa corporation.
3. Power to investigate cooperative
4. Control of cooperative

3. PROJECT EMPLOYEES (CHUA V CA)
Coverage of Employees
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is
covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
A household-helper is any person who renders
domestic or household services exclusively to a household
employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and
other similar occupations.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard
contract or employment between the seafarer and the
manning agency which, together with the foreign ship
owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government, international
organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality based
in the Philippines, which entered into an administrative
agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino
workers.

Are laborers continuously assigned to construction
projects as carpenters, wielders, are compulsory covered?

Case of CHUA vs CA: there was still an EE-ER relationship,
so covered. mao na, probationary employees, they are
covered under SSS. why? Regardless of the nature of the
employment.

EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.

So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if you
have an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for
example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS
law in the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist
na ang SSS but the question there, what is the effect of
your payment kung dunay labor case gifile later on?
Because for me, that may be considered as an admission
that there existed an EE-ER relationship. That is practical
why? you try to avoid criminal case.

The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to
the report the employer coverage to the SSS.

4. TAXI DRIVER ENGAGED ON BOUNDARY BASIS
They (taxi drivers) are EE just like jeepney drivers are EE to
their operators. Even if they receive "boundary basis"
compensation there is still an ER-EE relationship. The
method of fixing compensation is not determinative of an
EE-ER relationship. As long as the ER exercises the right to
control (not necessarily actual control), there is EE-ER
relationship.

Based on an article I found. Allow me, however to present
the following comments and observations relative to your
proposal:

1. Legal basis for SSS coverage of drivers of public
transport
The legal basis for the compulsory SSS coverage of drivers
of public transport may be derived from SSS Circular No.
79-T published on 03 April 1970 (Annex A). Said circular
provides the bases of coverage, premium contribution,
and allowable daily deduction or earnings of jeepney
drivers of jeepney operators, salient features of which are
as follows:

a. Basis of Coverage - Jeepney drivers are employees of
jeepney operators and, as such are required under the
Social Security Law to be reported for coverage by their
employee (Please refer to the Supreme Court ruling in the
case of the NATIONAL LABOR UNION vs. DINGLASAN, L-
7945, 23 March 1956).

b. Basis of Premium Contribution - If the earnings of
jeepney driver cannot be determined by records, then the
basis of the premium contribution to the SSS is the
minimum wage as authorized by Law (Please refer to
Supreme Court ruling in the case of MALATE TAXICAB 7
GARAGE, INC. vs. THE CIR AND NIU (G.R. NO. 1-8718,
PROM. May 11, 1956, 52 O.G, No. 6,p. 3034)

BASIS OF COVERAGE -
The Supreme Court held that jeepney drivers are
employees of jeepney operators in the case of the
NATIONAL LABOR UNION vs. DINGLASAN, L-7945, 23
March 1956. The Court RULED:
"...The drivers did not invest a single centavo in the
business and the respondent is the exclusive owner of the
jeeps. The management of the business is in the
respondent's hands. For even if the drivers of the jeeps
take material possession of the jeeps, still the respondent
as owner thereof and holder of a certificate of public
convenience is entitled to exercise, as he does and under
the law he must, supervision over the drivers by seeing to
it that they follow the route prescribed by the Public
Service Commission and rules and regulations promulgates
by its as regards their operation. X X X The only features
that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee
between the respondent and the drivers, x x x x are the
fact that he does not pay them fixed wage but their
compensation is the excess of the total amount of fares
earned or collected by them over and above the amount x
x x which they agreed to pay to the respondent, the owner
of the jeeps, and the fact that the gasoline burned by the
jeeps is for the account of the drivers. These two features
are not, however, sufficient to withdraw the relationship
between them from the employer-employee, x x x. Not
having any interest in the business because they did not
invest anything in the acquisition of the jeeps and did not
participate in the management thereof, their service as
drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution o the
business the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot be
sustained. In the lease of chattels the lessor loses control
over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot make
sure thereof, for he would be responsible for damages to
the lessor should he do so. In this case, there is a
supervision and sort of control that owner of the jeeps
exercise over the drivers.. It is an attempt by ingenious
scheme to withdraw the the relationship between the
owner of the laws enacted to promote industrial peace."

As such employees, jeepney drivers are therefore covered
under Sec. 10 of the Social Security Law.



5. LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING
Ans: You can avail the benefits and be a member under
SSS law if there exist an employer- employee relationship.
In labor only contractor, there could exist an employer-
employee relationship between the contractor- employee
and the principal. The principal is bound to register the
contractor employee under the SSS law, and pay its
contribution. The principal has power of control to the
contractor employees and not the labor only contractor
because the latter is only an agent of the principal.

Independent contractors and principal do not have
employer- employee relationship because the principal has
no power to control the means and tools in making the job
done. The principal is only concerned on the result.
However, they can be a member of SSS under the category
of self- employed depending on their wage earned.

Both do not have substantial capitalization. Under the
Labor Code, two (2) elements must exist for a finding of
labor-only contracting:
(a) the person supplying workers to an employer does not
have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others,
and

(b) the workers recruited and placed by such persons are
performing activities directly related to the principal
business of such employer.

TN: naa sa lain notes. Independent contracting and labor
only employees are not covered by the SS Law.

6. EMPLOYMENT SERVICES NOT COVERED: PURELY CASUAL
(MANSAL V GO-CHECO)

Very Important: EE Relationship because in SS law there
are employees that are excluded from coverage, so even if
they perform services and the receive compensation, they
are excluded because of the ABSENCE of employer-
employee relationship.

(j) Employment - Any service performed by an employee
for his employer except:

(1) Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employer;

(2) Service performed on or in connection with an alien
vessel by an employee if he is employed when such vessel
is outside the Philippines;

(3) Service performed in the employ of the Philippine
Government or instrumentality or agency thereof;

(4) Service performed in the employ of a foreign
government or international organization, or their wholly-
owned instrumentality: Provided, however, That this
exemption notwithstanding, any foreign government,
international organization or their wholly-owned
instrumentality employing workers in the Philippines or
employing Filipinos outside of the Philippines, may enter
into an agreement with the Philippine Government for the
inclusion of such employees in the SSS except those
already covered by their respective civil service retirement
systems: Provided, further, That the terms of such
agreement shall conform with the provisions of this Act on
coverage and amount of payment of contributions and
benefits: Provided, finally, That the provisions of this Act
shall be supplementary to any such agreement; and

(5) Such other services performed by temporary and other
employees which may be excluded by regulation of the
Commission. Employees of bona fide independent
contractors shall not be deemed employees of the
employer engaging the service of said contractors.

Employment services excluded. You can find this also on SS
book.
- FOCUS on number 1 and number 5.
- Employees of bonafide independent contractor
shall not be deemed employees of the employeer
engaging the service of the said contractors. (For purposes
of the bar, this will be important.)
- 1. "purely casual employment" and not for the
purpose of occupation for business of the employee .
o The person that is engaged there is actually an
employee, but is purely casual and not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employee.

case of MANSAL VS. GUCHECO Meaning of number (1).
The work of the mechanic is purely casual because it is not
part of the business in the operation of the lumber
business.

BAR: I think it was a warehouse or building selling
merchandise. naguba ang atop because of the storm and
the carpenter is hired to fix the roof.
Q: whether the carpenter should be compulsorily covered?
Answer is # 1. It was purely casual employment
and the services performed by the carpenter are not for
the purpose of occupation for business of the employer.
- But there can be a lot of arguments here. What
is purely casual, that is not also defined under SS law.

Agricultural laborer- the finding is also based on the
presence of the elements of employer employee
relationship.

7. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER

Coverage of Employers
a. An employer, or any person who uses the
services of another person in business, trade, industry or
any undertaking.

b. A social, civil, professional, charitable and other
non-profit organization which hire the services of
employees are considered employers.

c. A foreign government, international organization
or its wholly-owned instrumentality such as embassy in
the Philippines, may enter into an administrative
agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino
employees

8. SICKNESS BENEFIT NUMBER OF DAYS THAT CAN BE
PAID

Sickness Benefit
A daily cash allowance paid for the number of
days a member is unable to work due to sickness or injury.
The amount is equivalent to 90% of the members average
daily salary credit.
Requirements:
1. He is unable to work due to sickness or injury
and confined either in a hospital or at home for at least 4
days;

2. He has paid at least 3 months of contributions within
the 12-month period immediately before the semester of
sickness/injury
In computing, exclude the semester of sickness. A
semester refers to two consecutive quarters ending in the
quarter of sickness. A quarter refers to three consecutive
months ending March, June, September or December.

3. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and
Why? Because if there is a company paying, so why will
the system pay you? Supposedly, it is the fact that you will
not receive anything from the company due to your
inability to work where the system will compensate.

4. He has notified the employer or SSS, if separated,
voluntary or self-employed.
Notify employer within 5 calendar days after
start of sickness/injury and employer must notify SSS
within 5 days after receipt of notification. Notice is not
required if members confinement is in hospital (why?
Because it can easily be checked) or member got sick while
working or within company premises. (within the company
premises = the employer is supposed to know that you got
sick)

Note: Requirement 2 is very common to all benefits

For example (from the guidebook of SSS): SSS member
gets sick in October 2006 for 20 days.
a. The semester of sickness would be from July
2006 to December 2006. two quarters including the
October 2006
b. The 12-month period would be from July 2005 to
June 2006 (where the six highest monthly salary credits
will be chosen).
It is during the 12-month period where SSS would have to
know whether there was payment of at least three months
contribution.

MSC = Monthly Salary Credits
If maglahi2x ug sweldo kay balhin2x ug amo, it is the 6th
highest MSC that will be chosen.

In no case shall the daily sickness benefit be paid longer
than one hundred twenty (120) days in one (1) calendar
year, nor shall any unused portion of the one hundred
twenty (120) days of sickness benefit granted under this
section be carried forward and added to the total number
of compensable days allowable in the subsequent year.

Limit as to number of days (above) because in sickness, the
salary credit will have to be multiplied with the number of
days that the member gets sick hence the maximum
(stated above).

9. MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFIT

Maternity Benefit
It is a daily cash allowance granted to female
member who was unable to work due to childbirth or
miscarriage.No marriage requirement.
It is equivalent to 100% of members average
daily salary credit (wala pa niy deduction ha?) multiplied
by 60 days for normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for
caesarian section delivery.

Qualifications for entitlement: (same with sickness)
1. She has paid at least three monthly contributions
within the 12-month period immediately preceding the
semester of her childbirth or miscarriage
2. She has given the required notification of her
pregnancy through her employer if employed, or to SSS if
separated, voluntary or self-employed.

For example: SSS member gives birth in December 2006.
a. The semester of contingency would be from July
2006 to December 2006.
b. The 12-month period before the semester of
contingency would be from July 2005 to June 2006.

Deliveries covered: (Important aspect)
Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages
shall be paid starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)
Miscarriages include abortion. SSS website only mentioned
abortion, no qualification whether it is intentional or
unintentional but according to SSS abortion should only
cover unintentional. Why? According to them, there is a
criminal responsibility on intentional abortion.
But is it not that regardless or criminal liability for as long
as the facts comply with the requirements, in (sirs)
opinion, it should cover intentional abortion but I have no
basis for that. Because for me, the purpose of SS law is to
benefit the employee. What is the purpose of SS law with
respect the employer? To oblige the employer because
remember the employer does not get anything from the SS
law. Employer has a lot of obligations and responsibilities
under the SS law.

Note: Delivery of twins/triplets/quadra/etc. = one delivery
only

Notice required:
As soon as pregnancy is confirmed, member
must notify immediately employer or SSS, if unemployed,
etc. and probable date of childbirth at least 60 days from
date of conception. Employer must in turn notify SSS after
receipt of notification. Failure to observe the rule may
result in denial.

Can a member apply for sickness benefit if she has been
paid maternity benefit?
No, because as a rule, no member can be entitled to two
benefits for the same period.


10. WHO DETERMINES E-E?
11. EFFECT OF FINAL JUDGMENT AT NLRC ON E-E


WHO SHOULD DETERMINE E-E?
-since the existence of EE rel. between the respondent
coop and its owners-members was put in issue and
considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS law is
predicated on the existence of such relationship, it
behooves the petitioner SSC to determine if there is really
an EE rel existing between respondent coop and its
owners-members.

The same four-fold test, the same elements.
Independent contracting and labor only employees = not
covered by SS law.

-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC
provides that:

ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the
Commission:

Xxx xxxx xxx
6. except claims for employees compensation, SS,
medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising
from EE relations including those of persons in domestic or
household service including an amount exceeding P5000
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.

-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, it
would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof,
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by
the system. Hence, the question on the existence of EE
relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage
of SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the
NLRC and falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is
primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising
under SSL of 1997.

-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ff
elements are considered:
(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay
kapuy type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the
employers control of the employees conduct, not only as
to the result of the work to be done but also as to the
means and methods to accomplish.


Connect this to the case of Co vs People
SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.

Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed
from the supposed employee against the supposed
employer. That there was no EE relationship. The ruling
was final and executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang
kadtong supposed employer in the fiscals office for
violation of the SS law. Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC.
Ni.file ug motion to quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. And the court sustained, saying that there is
no more need to determine the EE relationship because
that has already been determined by the Labor Courts that
there was absence of EE relationship. And since SS law
coverage is predicated on the existence then there should
be no more criminal case to be filed against the supposed
employer.
SC: the mandatory coverage

Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory
ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the
ruling on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not
end the issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which
may be different to that of the Labor Courts.

SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)
1. expressly provided in the service contract that
respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the
selection and engagement of the owners-members as well
as team leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.
2. The weekly stipends or the so called share in the
service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its
owners-members WERE IN REALITY WAGES, as the same
were equivalent to an amount not lower than that
prescribed by the labor laws, rules and regulations
including the wage order applicable to the area and
industry or the same shall not be lower than the prevailing
rates of wages. It cannot be doubted then that those
stipends or share in the service surplus are indeed wages
because these are given to the owners-members as
compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to respondent
cooperatives client, stanfilco.
If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag
dividends sa corporation.
3. Power to investigate cooperative
4. Control of cooperative


12. CONTINGENCIES COVERED; BENEFITS WHERE EMPLOYER
ADVANCES

-SS evolved from an age-old search of man for protection
against poverty, which breeds grave social ills that not only
threaten his survival but also erode his sense of human
dignity. It therefore becomes the duty of the state to
operate a mechanism that would provide such protection
to its people.
Poverty in the context of contingency as contemplated in
the SS law. Contingencies contemplated in SS law which
the program seeks to address: death, old age, retirement,
sickness, pregnancy, or disability.
-the system established a program which relieves financial
want by restoring income lost through inability to work
due to death, old age, sickness, pregnancy or disability
Example, if a covered member of sss dies, he may be left
by his surviving spouse who may not have any work or any
source of income; or a covered employee retires.
-so workers are protected from anxieties arising out of
contingencies
-but another phenomenon has aroused a deep anxiety for
working class- globalization (ie, cost-cutting, productivity
enhancement, downsizing of personnel, termination of
jobs.) These may be financial but these are not
contingencies in the eyes of the ss law. Termination of job
and unemployment not included in the contingency.

Employers need to advance:
1. Advance SS and EC sickness benefits once approved by SSS
2. Advance SS maternity benefits due
3. File for reimbursement for all legally advanced sickness
and maternity benefits

13. CLAIMS UNDER LABOR CODE VIS--VIS SSS (ORTEGA V
SSC)

ORTEGA VS SSC

-Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under
the Social Security Law for benefits are not the same as to
their nature and purpose.
-On the one hand, the pertinent provisions of the Labor
Code govern compensability of work-related disabilities or
when there is loss of income due to work-connected or
work-aggravated injury or illness.
-On the other hand, the benefits under the Social Security
Law are intended to provide insurance or protection
against the hazards or risks of disability, sickness, old age
or death, inter alia, irrespective of whether they arose
from or in the course of the employment.
-And unlike under the Social Security Law, a disability is
total and permanent under the Labor Code if as a result of
the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform
any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding
120 days regardless of whether he loses the use of any of
his body parts.


14. COMPULSORY COVERAGE; WHEN EFFECTIVE
COMPULSORY COVERAGE (Memorize!) importance of the
word compulsory NO CHOICE hahahaha

Even if the household helper requests not to be covered,
which normally happens, nganu man? maibanan man
akoang sweldo ayaw lng deducti noh anyway naa btw para
SS ayaw nlng i-deduct. Assuming imong gi report, wa nimo
gi-deduct, ang employer manubag sa balaod! Dili ang
employee and remember wala rabai relationship. Inig kiha
sa employeer sa employee, aw kapapa ang employer .

Coverage of Employees
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is
covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
A household-helper is any person who renders
domestic or household services exclusively to a household
employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and
other similar occupations.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard
contract or employment between the seafarer and the
manning agency which, together with the foreign ship
owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government, international
organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality based
in the Philippines, which entered into an administrative
agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino
workers.

Are laborers continuously assigned to construction
projects as carpenters, wielders, are compulsory covered?

Case of CHUA vs CA: there was still an EE-ER relationship,
so covered. mao na, probationary employees, they are
covered under SSS. why? Regardless of the nature of the
employment.

EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.

So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if you
have an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for
example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS
law in the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist
na ang SSS but the question there, what is the effect of
your payment kung dunay labor case gifile later on?
Because for me, that may be considered as an admission
that there existed an EE-ER relationship. That is practical
why? you try to avoid criminal case.

The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to
the report the employer coverage to the SSS.

Compulsory coverage
1. For an employee on the first day of
employment
2. For an employer on the first day the employer
hires employee/s.
*Employer is given 30 days from date of employment to
report the employee for coverage to SSS.
3. For self-employed upon payment of first valid
contribution, in case of initial coverage.

15. APPEAL FROM SSC; NON-APPLICABILITY OF TECHNICAL
RULES

Sec 4. "(c) Court Review. The decision of the Commission
upon any disputed matter may be reviewed both upon the
law and the facts by the Court of Appeals. For the purpose
of such review the procedure concerning appeals from the
Regional Trial Court shall be followed as far as practicable
and consistent with the purposes of this Act. Appeal from
a decision of the Commission must be taken within fifteen
(15) days from notification of such decision. If the decision
of the Commission involves only questions of law, the
same shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court. No appeal
bond shall be required. The case shall be heard in a
summary manner, and shall take precedence over all
cases, except that in the Supreme Court, criminal cases
wherein life imprisonment or death has been imposed by
the trial court shall take precedence. No appeal shall act as
supersedeas or a stay of the order of the Commission
unless the Commission itself, or the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, shall so order.

How appeal is taken?
By verified petition for review (The Revised Rules of SSC
[1997]).
*Note: 1990 Rules of SCC state that it is by notice of
appeal.

6. Section 2 Technical rules not binding These rules shall
be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the
Social Security Act of 1997 and to assist the parties in
obtaining expeditious and inexpensive settlement or
resolution of any dispute arising under the said Act.

In any proceeding, which shall be non-litigious in nature,
the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law shall
not be controlling.

CASE: Signey vs. SSS
SC: SC will not disturb findings of fact of the SSS which are
supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the SSC
and the Court of Appeals.

Moreover, petitioner ought to be reminded of the basic
rule that this court is not a trier of facts.

It is a well-known rule that in proceedings before
administrative bodies, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not binding. The important consideration is
that both parties were afforded an opportunity to be
heard and they availed themselves of it to present their
respective positions on the matter in dispute.

It must likewise be noted that under section 2, Rule 1 of
the SSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the rules of evidence
prevailing in the courts of law shall not be controlling. In
the case at bar, the existence of a prior subsisting marriage
between the deceased and Editha is supported by the
substantial evidence. Petitioner, who has fully availed of
her right to be heard, only relied on the waiver of Editha
and failed to present any evidence to invalidate or
otherwise controvert the confirmed marriage certificate
registered under LCR Registry No. 2083 on 21 November
1967. She did not even try to allege and prove any
infirmity in the marriage between the deceased and
Editha.


16. BENEFICIARIES; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES

The legal beneficiaries of a member are:
Legally married dependent spouse until he or
she remarries;
Dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally
adopted and illegitimate children.
These two are primary beneficiaries.

Spouse- common-law relationship has no right to claim.
Until he or she remarries ha. Why? There is an assumption
in law that if there is a separation de facto, the assumption
is there is no more dependence. If they are living together,
one is dependent to another. Question here is, what if one
is working?

Children- take note, there is also the word "dependent".
Dependent, not gainfully employed, not yet reached the
age of 21 yrs. old. Important phrase here: "not gainfully
employed". No definition here in SS, in GSIS, there is.

If single, benefits will go to dependent parents who are
considered secondary beneficiaries.

In absence of both primary and secondary, any other
person designated by member.

17. CONSENT OF SSS ON FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTION
- Not needed.
RA 8282, Sec. 28 (i) Criminal action arising from a violation
of the provisions of this Act may be commenced by the SSS
or the employee concerned either under this Act or in
appropriate cases under the Revised Penal Code: Provided,
That such criminal action may be filed by the SSS in the city
or municipality where the SSS office is located, if the
violation was committed within its territorial jurisdiction or
in Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.

18. LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT AND GOOD FAITH AS
DEFENCES
Tan vs Ballena

In answer to criminal complaint for violation of SS law,
petitioners interposed the defenses of lack of criminal
intent and good faith as their failure to remit was brought
about by alleged economic difficulties, and they have
already agreed to settle their obligations with the SSS
through a memorandum of agreement to pay in
installments.

SC: As held by the Court of Appeals, the claims of good
faith and absence of criminal intent for the petitioners'
acknowledged non-remittance of the respondents'
contributions deserve scant consideration. The violations
charged in this case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a
special law. As such, it belongs to a class of offenses known
as mala prohibita.

19. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

Sickness Benefit
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member confined in
hospital/home:
- For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed
within 1 year from last day of confinement;
- For home, 1 year from start of illness.

*Failure to file the claim within the prescribed period will
result to denial of claim.

Disability Benefit
- 10 years from the date of occurrence of disability

Right to Institute (NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION)
Sec. 22 - The right to institute the necessary action
against the employer may be commenced within twenty
(20) years from the time the delinquency is known or the
assessment is made by the SSS, or from the time the
benefit accrues, as the case may be. (normally from the
time of discovery)

Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim: (Take note of
this)

10 years from the date of occurrence of
disability. (employee filing claims against the system)

In order to contextualize, the other prescriptive period is
section 22: claims against the employer = 20 years
(employee filing claims against employer)

In the SS website, since the law is silent as to the period on
retirement and death and maternity = no prescribed
period. Does it follow that section 22 would apply (20
years)? NOT necessarily since section 22 is a claims against
the EMPLOYER i.e. (employer was not able to report).
- According to SS Commission, the other benefits
not covered, it is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, that is if you have
complied with the notices of requirement.

20. GARCIA V SSC DIRECTOR LIABLE?

Garcia vs SSC

-SSC found Garcia, the sole surviving director of Impact
Corporation, petitioner herein, liable for unremitted SSS
contributions.
Issue is whether or not petitioner, as the only surviving
director of Impact Corporation, can be made solely liable
for the corporate obligations of Impact Corporation
pertaining to unremitted SSS premium contributions and
penalties therefore.
- Petitioner challenges the finding of the Court of Appeals
that under Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law, a mere
director or officer of an employer corporation, and not
necessarily a "managing" director or officer, can be held
liable for the unpaid SSS premium contributions.
- Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law provides the
following:
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this
Act be committed by an association, partnership,
corporation or any other institution, its managing head,
directors or partners shall be liable to the penalties
provided in this Act for the offense. (very interesting
provision daw)

SC:
This Court though finds no need to resort to statutory
construction. Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law
imposes penalty on:
(1) the managing head;
(2) directors; or
(3) partners, for offenses committed by a
juridical person
The said provision does not qualify that the director or
partner should likewise be a "managing director" or
"managing partner. The law is clear and unambiguous

Although a corporation once formed is conferred a
juridical personality separate and distinct from the persons
comprising it, it is but a legal fiction introduced for
purposes of convenience and to subserve the ends of
justice. The concept cannot be extended to a point beyond
its reasons and policy, and when invoked in support of an
end subversive of this policy, will be disregarded by the
courts.


II. GSIS Act of 1997

1. JURISDICTION

GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any
dispute arising under RA 8291 w/ respect to:
- Coverage
- Entitlement to benefits
- Collection and payment of contributions
- Any other matter related to any or all of the foregoing
which is necessary for their determination
Prescriptive period
Four years from date of contingency except life and
retirement which do not prescribe.

2. ARE JUDGES COVERED?

COMPULSORY COVERAGE OF JUDGES UNDER GSIS: LIFE
INSURANCE
Compulsory Life Insurance NOTE
All employees, including the members of the judiciary and
the constitutional commissioners, but excluding the
uniformed members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police and the
Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), and Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology.
In contributions, there is a column 9% employees, 12%
employers, in excess of 10,000 it is subject to 2%. There is
a column for members of the judiciary and the
constitutional commissioners. Ang percentage sa ilang
contribution is 3% representing compulsory life insurance.
And NOTE: THERE IS NOTHING THERE ABOUT EMPLOYERS
CONTRIBUTION. Why? Because they are not covered. Ang
coverage nila is only with respect to life insurance.

3. WHO IS A DEPENDENT LEGITIMATE CHILD?
4. NEW BENEFITS; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES IN CASE OF
SURVIVORSHIP

Beneficiaries under GSIS:
1. When a member or pensioner dies, the primary
beneficiaries (surviving legal spouse and dependent
children) or secondary beneficiaries, as the case may be,
shall be entitled to the applicable survivorship benefits.

2. The primary beneficiaries[1] shall be the following:
a. The legitimate spouse, until s/he re-marries, or co-
habits/engages in common-law relationship; and
b. The dependent legitimate, legally adopted or
legitimated children, including illegitimate children, who
have not reached the age of majority, or, have reached the
age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of self-
support due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior
to age of majority.

3. The secondary beneficiaries shall be the dependent
parents and, subject to the restrictions on dependent
children, the legitimate descendants[2].

The secondary beneficiaries shall only be entitled to
survivorship benefits if there are no primary beneficiaries.

Meaning of dependent?
Dependent means one who derives his or her main
support from another, meaning, relying, or subject to,
someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain
oneself, or to perform anything without the will, power, or
aid of someone else. (A.M No. 100119 Ret. February 22,
2001 * RE: APPLICATION FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS.
MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE
ERNESTO R. MANLAVI])
A.M No. 100119 Ret. February 22, 2001 [ RE:
APPLICATION FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS. MAYLENNE
G. MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ERNESTO R.
MANLAVI)

5. SEPARATION BENEFIT FOR CAUSE

SEPARATION BENEFIT UNDER GSIS: TWO DISTINCTIONS:
(1) IF SEPARATION IS FOR CAUSE OR (2) NOT FOR CAUSE
IRR, Rule II, sec. 25; DISTINCTION
Member separated for cause
o Automatically forfeit
o Unless terms of resignation or separation provide
otherwise
Member separated not for cause
o Shall continue to be a member and entitled subject to
qualification and other prescription


6. COA DISALLOWANCES

As a general rule, they cannot be deducted except when
his monetary liability contractual or otherwise in favor of
gsis member separated for cause automatically forfeit
unless terms of resignation or separation provide
otherwisemember separated not for cause shall continue
to be member and entitled subject to qualification and
other prescription

What is COA disallowances?
Disallowance - the disapproval in audit of a transaction,
either in whole or in part. The term applies to the audit of
disbursements a s distinguished from "charge" which
applies to the audit of revenues/receipts.

The scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods required therefor, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations
including those for the prevention and disallowance of
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government
funds and properties.
Section 4. Audit Disallowances/ Charges/ Suspensions - In
the course of the audit, whenever there are differences
arising from the settlement of accounts by reason of
disallowances or charges, the auditor shall issue Notices of
Disallowances/Charge (ND/NC) which shall issue Notices of
Disallowance/Charge (ND/NC) which shall be considered as
audit decisions, recommendations or dispositions shall be
supported by applicable laws, regulations, jurisprudence
and the generally accepted accounting and auditing
principles. The Auditor may issue Notices of Suspension
(NS) for transactions of doubtful legality/validity/ propriety
to obtain further explanation or documentation.

"SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien
"The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well
as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the
benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by
the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies
including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and
from all financial obligations of the members, including his
pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or
occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official
functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection
with his position or work except when his monetary
liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.

COA disallowances cannot be deducted from retirement
benefits.

GSIS VS COA
The main controversy of whether COA disallowances could
be deducted from retirement benefits because the Board
ordered the dismissal of respondents claim for alleged
lack of jurisdiction, before it could even decide on the
principal issue.

The lone issue is whether COA disallowances could be
legally deducted from retirement benefits on the ground
that these were respondents monetary liabilities to the
GSIS under the said provision. There is no dispute that the
amounts deducted by GSIS represented COA
disallowances. Thus, the only question left for the Board
to decide is whether the deductions are allowed under RA
8291.

Provision of law clearly states that no amount whatsoever
could be legally deducted from retirement benefits, even
those amounts representing COA disallowances.

47.5. Exemption of all Funds of the GSIS from Tax,
Attachment, Execution, Levy or Other Legal Processes.-
The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well
as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the
benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by
the courts, quasi judicial agencies or administrative bodies
including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and
from all financial obligations of the members, including his
pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or
occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official
functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection
with his position or work except when his monetary
liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.


7. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

"SECTION 28. Prescription. Claims for benefits under
this Act except for life and retirement shall prescribe after
four (4) years from the date of contingency.

When the pensioner dies within the 5-year period after
receiving the five-year lump sum, the survivorship pension
shall be paid only after the end of the said five-year period.
However, filing of claim for survivorship benefit should be
done before the end of the 4-year prescription period


8. GSIS V NLRC SECURITY GUARDS MONEY
CLAIMS

GSIS vs. NLRC (important)
Remember there is an indirect employer under the labor
code.
Private respondents were security guards of a security
agency assigned to Tacloban branch of GSIS.
The security guards thereafter filed an illegal dismissal
against the agency and GSIS, separation pay, salary
differential, 13th month and unpaid salary.
When there was an execution against GSIS for the money
claims, GSIS argued, you cannot touch our funds, invoking
SEC. 39 of the Charter.
GSIS filed the present petition contending the error
committed because it is exempt from execution per
charter.
SC:
The fact that there is no actual and direct employer
employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents does not absolve the former from liability for
the latters monetary claims. When petitioner contracted
DNL securitys services, petitioner became an indirect
employer of respondents, pursuant to article 107 of the
labor code.
After DNL security failed to pay respondents the correct
wages and other monetary benefits, petitioner, as
principal, became jointly and severally liable, as provided
in articles 106 and 109 of the labor code.
Citing GSIS vs. RTC of Pasig. SC did not agree with
petitioner that the enforcement of the decision is
impossible because its charter unequivocally exempts it
from execution.
Petitioners charter should not be used to evade its
liabilities to its employees, even to its indirect employees,
as mandated by the labor code.
PEOPLE nagpadungog2 napud balik ang contracting agency
echus sa LABOR. Maygawshhh!!!! Saup baya ko atong
essay!!!!

III. PORTABILITY LAW

1. WHEN APPLICABLE? WHEN IS TOTALIZATION RESORTED
TO?

With the help of RA 7699, otherwise known as the
Portability Law, government retirees who do not meet the
required number of years provided under PD 1146 and RA
8291 can still avail of retirement and other benefits.

Under the scheme, you may combine your years of service
in the private sector represented by your contributions to
the Social Security System (SSS) with your government
service and contributions to the GSIS to satisfy the
required years of service under PD 1146 and RA 8291.

However, if you have satisfied the required years of service
under the GSIS retirement option you have chosen, you
would not be allowed to incorporate your contributions to
the SSS anymore for availment of additional benefits.

In case of death, disability and old age, the periods of
creditable services or contributions to the SSS and GSIS
shall be summed up to entitle you to receive the benefits
under either PD 1146 or RA 8291.

If qualified under RA 8291, all the benefits shall apply
EXCEPT the cash payment. The reason for this is that the
Portability Law or RA 7699 provides that only benefits
common to both Systems (GSIS and SSS) shall be paid.
Cash payment is NOT included in the benefits provided by
the SSS.

Portability Benefits RA 7699
- A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old
age and other benefits by reason of non-fulfillment of the
required period of service may be able to qualify for such
benefits by making use of the period during which he
rendered services to a private employer and for which
contributions were paid to SSS. This is allowed under RA
7699 (approved May 1, 1994)
- The Act instituted a limited portability scheme in
the GSIS and SSS by totalizing the workers creditable
services or contributions in each of the Systems.

Portability refers to transfer of funds for the benefit and
account of a worker who transfers from one system to the
other (RA 7699, Sec. 2 [b]).

Totalization refers to the process of adding up the
periods of creditable services or contributions in each of
the Systems for purposes of eligibility and computation of
benefits, For purposes of totalization, overlapping periods
of membership shall be considered once only (Sec. 3)

Overlapping period refers to the period during which a
worker contributes simultaneously to GSIS and SSS.
IV.
V.
VI. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

1. VALERIANO V ECC - COVERAGE FORMULA "ARISING
OUT OF" AND "IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT"; 24-
HOUR-DUTY DOCTRINE


2. CAN A CLAIM FOR BENEFIT BE DEFEATED BY THE MERE
FACT OF SEPARATION FROM SERVICE? (GSIS V CUANANG,
AQUINO V SSS, ETC.)

1) VALERIANO V. ECC
(GR No. 136200,June 8, 2000)

Celerino Valeriano was employed as a fire truck
driver assigned at the San Juan Fire Station
On July 3, 1985, petitioner met a friend by the
name of Alexander Agawin. They decided to
proceed to Bonanza Restaurant in EDSA, for
dinner.
Owner-type jeepney they were riding in figured
in a head-on collision with another vehicle at the
intersection of N. Domingo and Broadway
streets in Q.C.
Petitioner was thrown out of the vehicle and
was severely injured. He was brought to the
hospital for several treatments.
On Sept. 16, 1985, he filed a claim for income
benefits under PD 626 with GSIS.
GSIS & ECC; Opposed on the ground that the
injuries he sustained did not directly arise or
result from the nature of his work.

ISSUES:
- Whether petitioners injuries are work-
connected
- Whether petitioner fireman, like soldiers, can be
presumed to be on 24- hour duty
HELD:

SC: For injury to be compensable, the standard of work-
connection must be substantially satisfied. The injury and
the resulting disability sustained by reason of employment
are compensable regardless of the place where the injured
occurred, if it can be proven that at the time of the injury,
the employee was acting within the purview of his
employment and performing an act reasonably necessary
or incidental thereto. Petitioner sustained the injuries
after pursuing a purely personal and social function. His
injuries and consequent disability were not work-
connected and thus not compensable.

In Hinoguin and Nitura , the Court granted death
compensation benefits to their heirs, as both members of
the Phil. Army. Citing ECC v. CA, Court reviewed Hinoguin,
Nitura and ECC and noted that in each case death benefit
were granted, not just because of the principle that
soldiers or policemen were virtually working round the
clock, but of the reasonable nexus between the absence
of the deceased from his assigned place of work and the
incident causing his death.

Taking together jurisprudence and pertinent
guidelines of ECC with respect to claims for death benefits:
1. That the employee must be at the place where
his work requires him to be
2. That the employee must have been performing
his official functions
3. That if the injury is sustained elsewhere, the
employee must have been executing an order
for the employer.
24 hour duty doctrine cannot be applied to petitioners
case.
- He was neither at assigned work place nor in
pursuit of orders of his superiors when he met
an accident.
- He was not doing an act within his duty and
authority as a fire truck driver at the time he
sustained his injuries.


2) GSIS V. CUANANG
(GR No. 158846, June 3, 2004)

Carmen Cuanang was formerly employed as a
teacher in the Division of City Schools, Manila.
She was first appointed as Elementary Grade
Teacher, then promoted to Teacher I and later
on to Teacher II.
Carmen served as Teacher II until she applied for
early optional retirement after completing
almost 26 years of government service.
Sept. 14-18, 1997 she was confined for
Bronchial Ashma & Pneumonia, RHD and Mitral
Stenosis. She filed sickness benefits with GSIS
under PD 626. GSIS awarded her Temporary
Total Disability benefits from Nov. 14-25, 1998.
He was also granted Permanent Partial
Disability benefits for 9 months.
She died at the age of 65 with the immediate
cause of death was determined to be Cardio
Pulmonary Arrest with Acute Myocardial
Infarction as the antecent cause, and Bronchial
Asthma and Hypertension as underlying cause.
GSIS: PD 626 since it occurred after retirement and
beyond PPD period. death was due to Myocardial
Infarction is not compensable under
ECC: affirmed the GSIS denial of respondents claim
ISSUE: Whether the resulting death of Carmen
Cuanang is compensable under PD 626.
SC: The wife of the respondent died a year after her
retirement . Clearly, the period between her
retirement and demise was less than 1 year. A claim
for benefit for such death cannot be defeated by the
mere fact of separation from service.
There was a substantial evidence to support respondents
claim.
- The requisite substantial evidence came from
the expert opinion of Dr. Arsenio Estreras who
issued the Death Certificate
- Expert opinion is fully supported by the facts
leading to Carmen Cuanangs deteriorating
health condition and ultimately, her death.
When she joined the government service on Oct.
1, 1972, she was in perfect health, but condition
while still in service started to worsen.
- Myocardial Infarction or known as coronary is
a life threatening condition. Predisposing factors
include stress. The collective effect of all the
factors involved during her service contributed
to the deterioration of her already precarious
health.
- The respondents claim is GRANTED.