Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JIMENO)
CASES:
1. THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. THE
HON. JUDGE FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., respondents.
SSS CASES
14. AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC. and ANTONIO F. MATEO,
petitioners, vs. ELIZA R. LOPEZ, respondent.
Facts:
The Faculty Club of the University of Santo Tomas, Inc. and San Beda
College Lay Faculty Club, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief with
preliminary injunction alleging in substance that they have existing
agreements with their respective employers the University of Santo
Tomas and San Beda College for the establishment of gratuity and
retirement funds which have been in operation prior to September 1,
1957; that the Social Security Commission tried to compel them to
integrate their private systems into the Social Security System on said
date; that inasmuch as their private systems grant more benefits to
the members than the Social Security System the integration of their
private systems would deprive their members of property without due
process of law, as well as would impair the obligation of their contract
to the detriment of the members. They prayed for the issuance of
preliminary injunction ex parte commanding the Social Security
Commission to desist from compelling them to integrate during the
pendency of the case on the ground that, unless said Commission is
enjoined, it might enforce the penal provisions of the Social Security
Act.
10.SSS VS DAVAC ET AL
11.FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION VS ROSETE
Issue:
12.SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT Whether or not their integration to the SSS would mean the
OF JUSTICE, JOSE V. MARTEL, OLGA S. MARTEL, and destruction of their existing private systems
SYSTEMS AND ENCODING CORPORATION, respondents.
13.MACHUCA TILE CO. INC VS SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
Ruling:
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
Issue:
Whether the decision of NLRC on the existence of employer-employee
relationship binds upon the SSC case
Ruling:
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
executed with Stanfilco, Asiapro is actually a manpower contractor
supplying employees to Stanfilco and so, it is an employer of its
owners-members working with Stanfilco. Thus, Asiapro should register
itself with petitioner SSS as an employer and make the corresponding
report and remittance of premium contributions. Despite letters
received, respondent cooperative continuously ignored the demand of
petitioner SSS. Respondent cooperative alleges that its ownersmembers own the cooperative, thus, no employer-employee
relationship can arise between them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between
Stanfilco and its owner-members.
HELD:
YES. An owner-member of a cooperative can be an employee of the
latter and an employer-employee relationship can exist between them.
A cooperative acquires juridical personality upon its registration with
the Cooperative Development Authority. It has its Board of Directors,
which directs and supervises its business; meaning, its Board of
Directors is the one in charge in the conduct and management of its
affairs. With that, a cooperative can be likened to a corporation with a
personality separate and distinct from its owners-members. It is true
that the Service Contracts executed between the respondent
cooperative and Stanfilco expressly provide that there shall be no
employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative
and its owners-members. However, the existence of an employeremployee relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it
in a contract, when the terms and surrounding circumstances show
otherwise. The employment status of a person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. It is
settled that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
classes, terms and conditions as they want, and their agreement
would have the force of law between them. However, the agreed
terms and conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, customs,
public policy or public order. The Service Contract provision in question
must be struck down for being contrary to law and public policy since
it is apparently being used by the respondent cooperative merely to
circumvent the compulsory coverage of its employees, who are also its
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
(1) P3,600.00 equivalent to one year's salary of the deceased;
(2) P600.00 representing his unpaid salary for two months;
(3) P288,00 "representing the cash received by respondents from
their laborers as contribution to the family of the deceased;" and
P2,000.00 by way of attorney's fees.
RESPONDENT: moved to dismiss the petitioner stating that SSS has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter and that Judith has no capacity to
sue
SSC: denied respondent's motion and ordered respondent to file his
answer. When no answer was filed, SSS declared respondent in default
and allowed petitioner to present evidence.
RESOLUTION: declared itself without jurisdiction to entertain
the claims in the petition except the one for the sum of P3,600,
which it awarded based on the evidences presented.
RESPONDENT: Motion for reconsideration was filed but the SSC denied
it.
RESPONDENT: Elevated the case for review before the CA which issued
a writ of preliminary injunction
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
without notice to them with the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
They further alleged that petitioner did not report them to the SSS for
compulsory coverage in flagrant violation of the Social Security Act.
Chua in his answer claimed that private respondents had no cause of
action against him and assuming that there was any, they were barred
by prescription and laches. He also claimed that private respondents
were not regular employees but were project employees whose work
had been fixed for a specific project or undertaking which completion
is determined at the time of their engagement. He also concluded that
the said employees were not entitled to coverage under the SSA. The
SSS filed a petition in intervention and on February 1, 1995, the SSC
issued its Order which ruled in favor of private respondents, stating
that the petitioner should pay the SSS and the unpaid SS/EC and
contributions plus penalty for the delayed remittance. The SSC denied
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner for lack of merit.
The petitioner then filed a Motion for Review to the CA, claiming the
same that the private respondents are project employees whose
period of employment are terminated upon completion of the project
and that no employer-employee relationship existed between them.
Thus, there no being employer-employee relationship, the private
respondents are not entitled to coverage under the SSA and that their
length of service did not change their status from project employees
to regular employees. Petitioner also questioned the failure to apply
the rules on prescription of actions and of laches for filing six to eight
later after they were taken in by the petitioner. The CA, citing Article
280 of the Labor Code declared that the private respondents were all
regular employees in relation to certain activities since they all worked
either as masons, carpenters and fine graders in the petioles various
projects for at least one year, and that their work was necessary
desirable to petitioner's business which involved the construction or
roads and bridges. The CA rejected the claim of prescription stating
that the filing of private respondents claim was well within the twenty
year period provided by the SSA. Petitioner then filed with the SC a
Motion for Reconsideration.
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
2) Whether or not the private respondents claim to be covered by Section 22 (a) and (b) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as
the SSS already prescribed.
amended. Section 28 being the PENAL CLAUSE of the said law
HELD:
1) YES. The SC affirmed the CA's decision and held that there is no
dispute that private respondents were employees of petitioner who
became regular employees by their being repeated re-hiring. There is
an employer-employee relationship existing between the parties
having control over the results of the work done by the private
respondents as well as the means and methods by which the same
were accomplished. The private respondents are subject of the
compulsory coverage under the SSS Law. (it is not required to
establish what kind of employee, in this case whether project or
regular, as long as there is employee-employer relationship. The
employee- employer relationship is what is required to be under the
Social Security System)
(e) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Act or
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission, shall
be punished by a ?ne of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That where the
violation consists in failure or refusal to register employees or himself,
in case of the covered self-employed, or to deduct contributions from
the employees' compensation and remit the same to the SSS, the
penalty shall be a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) and imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years.
The RTC sustained petitioners motion and dismiss the criminal case. It
2) NO. Their claim for the SSS coverage has not prescribed and not ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the
guilty of laches, their right to claim would only prescribe after the Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Social
period of 20 years.
Security System ("SSS") extending the coverage of Social Security,
6. BEN STA. RITA , petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE Medical Care and Employment Compensation laws to Filipino seafarers
on board foreign vessels was null and void as it was entered into by
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SOCIAL SECURITY
the Administrator of the SSS without the sanction of the Commission
SYSTEM, respondents.
and approval of the President of the Philippines, in contravention of
Facts:
Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended.
Sta. Rita was charged for violating the provisions of the Social Security
Law. It was alleged that he was a President/General manager of B. Sta.
Rita Co., Inc. a compulsorily covered employer under the Social
Security Law, as amended, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully
fail, neglect and refuse and still fails, neglects and refuses to remit to
the Social Security System contributions for SSS, Medicare and
Employees Compensation for its covered employees." Petitioner Sta.
Rita moved to dismiss said criminal case alleging that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense and that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case.
However, the people, through the OSG, filed in the CA a petition for
certiorari assailing the order of dismissal by the trial court. Respondent
CA granted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal
case.
In the Petition for Review, petitioner Sta. Rita contends that the Filipino
seafarers recruited by B. Sta. Rita Co. and deployed on board foreign
vessels outside the Philippines are exempt from the coverage of R.A.
No. 1161 under Section 8 (j) (5) thereof:
"Terms Defined
WHY CRIMINAL? WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE CRIMINAL ASIDE FROM EMPLOYMENT Any service performed by an employee for his
ESTAFA WHEN IT IS NOT REMITTED? criminal liability for violation of employer, except
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
(b) Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for
employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis."
DOCTRINE:
The law does not give the SSC unfettered discretion to trifle with
orders of regular courts in the exercise of its authority to determine
the beneficiaries of the SSS.
SYNOPSIS
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
siblings, paid for Bailon's medical and funeral expenses; and all the
documents submitted by respondent to the SSS in support of her
claims are spurious.
Cecilia and her sister Norma Bailon Chavez (Norma) submitted an
Affidavit averring that they are two of nine children of Bailon and Elisa
who cohabited as husband and wife with Clemente Bailon
Cecilia and Norma contest the marriage between Bailon and
respondent as they personally know that Alice is "still very much
alive."
Hermes P. Diaz, claiming to be the brother and guardian of "Aliz P.
Diaz," filed before the SSS a claim for death benefits, he further
attests in a sworn statement that it was Norma who defrayed Bailon's
funeral expenses.
FACTS
Elisa (2nd wife) and seven of her children subsequently filed claims for
death benefits as Bailon's beneficiaries before the SSS.
On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice)
contracted marriage in Barcelona, Sorsogon. More than 15 years later
or on October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the CFI of Sorsogon a
petition to declare Alice presumptively dead the CFI granted the
petition
Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared presumptively dead The deceased member was the deserting spouse and who remarried,
Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque (respondent) in thus his marriage to Teresita Jarque, for the second time was void as it
was bigamous
Casiguran, Sorsogon
SSS Sorsogon Branch, by letter of August 16, 2000, advised
respondent that as Cecilia and Norma were the ones who defrayed
Respondent filed a claim for funeral benefits, and was granted P12,000 Bailon's funeral expenses, she should return the P12,000 paid to her.
by the SSS. Additional death benefits claimed were also granted by
In another letter, SSS advised respondent of the cancellation of her
SSS
monthly pension for death benefits in view of the opinion rendered by
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia), who claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and its legal department that her marriage with Bailon was void as it was
one Elisa Jayona (Elisa) contested before the SSS the release to contracted while the latter's marriage with Alice was still subsisting. It
respondent of the death and funeral benefits.
thus requested respondent to return the amount of P24,000
She claimed that Bailon contracted three marriages in his representing the total amount of monthly pension she had received
lifetime, the first with Alice, the second with her mother Elisa, and the from the SSS from February 1998 to May 1999.
Bailon a member of the SSS and a retiree pensioner DIED.
third with respondent, all of whom are still alive; she, together with her
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
SSC and SSS: separately filed their Motions for Reconsideration 37
which were both denied for lack of merit.
SSS: Filed a petitioner for review on certiorari
ISSUE:
The SSS, by letter to respondent denial of her claim. It advised her Whether or not the SSC gravely abused its discretion
that she was not deprived of her right to file a petition with the SSC.
HELD
Respondent thus filed a petition against the SSS before the SSC for the
restoration to her of her entitlement to monthly pension. In lieu of Petition is denied
such she informed SSS that she was returning under protest the
amount of P12,000 representing funeral benefits which she couldn't Yes, SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to SSS
coverage, benefits and contributions, there is no doubt. In so
spend because Norma and her siblings stopped her from spending.
exercising such power, however, it cannot review, much less
After the SSS filed its Answer to respondent's petition, and the parties reverse, decisions rendered by courts of law as it did in the case
filed their respective Position Papers, one Alicia P. Diaz filed an at bar when it declared that the December 10, 1970 CFI Order was
Affidavit dated August 14, 2002 with the SSS Naga Branch attesting obtained through fraud and subsequently disregarded the same,
that she is the widow of Bailon; she had only recently come to know of making its own findings with respect to the validity of Bailon and
the petition filed by Bailon to declare her presumptively dead; it is not Alice's marriage on the one hand and the invalidity of Bailon and
true that she disappeared as Bailon could have easily located her, she respondent's marriage on the other.
having stayed at her parents' residence in Barcelona, Sorsogon after
she found out that Bailon was having an extramarital affair; and Bailon In interfering with and passing upon the CFI Order, the SSC virtually
acted as an appellate court. The law does not give the SSC
used to visit her even after their separation
unfettered discretion to trifle with orders of regular courts in
By Resolution of April 2, 2003, the SSC found that the marriage of the exercise of its authority to determine the beneficiaries of
respondent to Bailon was void and, therefore, she was "just a the SSS.
common-law-wife." Teresita was declared not a legitimate spouse,
not the primary beneficiary of Bailon and that she should refund all the Since the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family
Code, the Civil Code would be the prevailing law.
benefits she has received.
RESPONDENT: motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus a If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the
subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such
petition for review was filed before the CA.
absentee's mere reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in
CA: reversed the SSC Resolution the court held that the only the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage. Since the
competent court can nullfy a marriage, in this case SSS cannot validly second marriage has been contracted because of a presumption that
declare the 2nd marriage null and void on the basis of its own the former spouse is dead, such presumption continues inspite of the
investigation. Respondent SSS cannot arrogate upon itself the spouse's physical reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she must
authority to review the decision of the regular courts under the pretext still be regarded as legally an absentee until the subsequent marriage
is terminated as provided by law
of determining the actual and lawful beneficiaries of its members.
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
10
The request was based on the claim that the said act is a labor W/N TAXING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? No, this is for the protection of labor,
law and does not cover religious and charitable institutions but it is contribution to be held in trust and returned because of disability,
is limited to businesses and activities organized for profit. The sickness or death
Social Security Commission DENIED the request
The definition of the term employer is sufficiently comprehensive as to
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila reiterating its include religious and charitable institutions or entities not organized
arguments requested for reconsideration, however was DENIED for profit. This is made more evident by the fact that it contains an
exception in which said institutions or entities are not included.
by the Commission
The coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the 9. ELENA P. DYCAICO , petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
existence of an employer-employee relationship of more or less and SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondents.
permanent nature and extends to employment of all kinds FACTS:
except those expressly exclude
Bonifacio S. Dycacio is a member of the SSS. He retired on June 1989.
Appellant contends that the term employer as defined in the A few months prior to his death, he married the petitioner. The
law should following the principle of ejusdem generis be petitioner then filed with SSS an application of survivors pension but
limited to those who carry on undertakings or activities which was denied on the ground that under Sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 she
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial
burden."
Furthermore, court holds that the sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 is
unconstitutional for it violates the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Constitution. In an analogous case (GSIS v.
Montesclaros) the court invalidated a presidential because the Court
characterized retirement benefits as property interest of the pensioner
as well as his or her surviving spouse. The proviso, which denied a
dependent spouse's claim for survivorship pension if the dependent
spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the three-year
prohibited period, was declared offensive to the due process clause.
(he was not given the right to be heard)
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review and the same affirmed
in toto the decision of the SSC. Petitioner then filed a motion for NOTE:
reconsideration in the same court but was again denied.
For clarity, Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 is quoted anew
The court required the parties as well as OSG to file their respective below: Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits.
comments on the issue. SSS and OSG have the same stance.
xxx xxx xxx
ISSUE/S:
(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as
WON Sec. 12-B(d) of RA 8282 violates the equal protection and due of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly
process clauses of the Constitution. - YES
pension. . . .
HELD:
The purpose of the provision is to prevent sham marriages or those
contracted by persons solely to enable one spouse to claim benefits
upon the anticipated death of the other spouse. In this case, the
assailed provision effectively disqualifies form entitlement to
survivors pension all those dependent spouses whose respective
marriages to retired SSS members were contracted after the latters
retirement irrespective of the duration of marriage. It is therefor,
arbitrary and discriminatory. It unfairly lumps all theses marriages as
sham relationships or were contracted solely for the purpose of
acquiring benefits accruing upon the death of the other spouse. The
proviso thus unduly prejudices the rights of the legal surviving spouse,
like the petitioner, and defeats the avowed policy of the law "to
provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries
against the hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death,
11
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
FACTS:
12
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
and
immediately
respondents left eye. Loss of one bodily function falls within the
definition of disability which is essentially "loss or impairment
of a physical or mental function resulting from injury or
sickness."
ISSUE:
Whether respondent is entitled to claim disability benefits from the
petitioners
Whether respondent is entitled to be awarded permanent total or
permanent partial disability benefits
Whether respondents entitlement to permanent total disability
benefits should be based on the CBA or his POEA-SEC which
integrated the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board OceanGoing Vessels.
HELD:
13
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
show that the blurring of his left eye was caused by an accident relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282.
on board the ship. Thus, Article 28 of the CBA cannot be used Prosecutor Puti rejected respondent Martels' claim of "negation" of
to compute his disability benefits.
criminal liability by novation, holding that (1) SENCOR's criminal
liability was already "consummated" before respondent Martels
12. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF offered to pay SENCOR's liability and (2) the dacion en pago involving
JUSTICE, JOSE V. MARTEL, OLGA S. MARTEL, and SYSTEMS AND the Tagaytay City property did not materialize.
ENCODING CORPORATION, respondents.
The Pasay City Prosecutor's Office filed with the Regional Trial Court of
FACTS:
Pasay City the corresponding Information against respondent Martels
Respondents Jose V. Martel and Olga S. Martel (respondent Martels) Respondent Martels appealed to the DOJ.
are directors of respondent Systems and Encoding Corporation
(SENCOR), an information technology firm, with respondent Jose V. DOJ Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee set aside Prosecutor Puti's
Martel serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors
Resolution and ordered the withdrawal of the Information filed in
Criminal case. The DOJ found that respondent Martels and petitioner
Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation entered into a compromise agreement before the filing of the
mandated by its charter, RA 1161, to provide financial benefits to Information in Criminal Case and that such "negated" any criminal
private sector employees
liability on respondent Martels' part.
SENCOR is covered by RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282, Section 22 Petitioner sought reconsideration but the DOJ denied its motion in the
of which requires employers to remit monthly contributions to Resolution of 20 September 2001.
petitioner representing the share of the employer and its employees.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari
SSS: filed with Pasay City Prosecutor's office a complaint against and it affrmed the DOJ's rulings and dismissed petitioner's petition.
respondent for NON-PAYMENT of contributions (worth P6M January
1991 May 1997)
ISSUE:
MARTELS and 5 ACCUSED (SENCOR): offered to assign to SSS a parcel Whether or not the concept of novation serves to abate the
of land in Tagaytay for payment of their contributions
prosecution of respondent Martels for violation of Section 22 (a) and
(b) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA 1161, as amended.
SSS: Accepted on the condition that respondent will settle their
obligation by way of dacion en pago or through cash settlement within HELD:
reasonable tme. SSS withdrew the complaint from the Prosecutors
NO, Novation, a civil law concept relating to the modification of
office which the latter accordinly dismissed.
obligations, takes place when the parties to an existing contract
RESPONDENT MARTEL: wrote to SSS that instead of the land, they will execute a new contract which either changes the object or
offer computer related services.
principal condition of the original contract, substitutes the
person of the debtor, or subrogates a third person in the
SSS: filed with the Pasay City Prosecutor's office another complaint for rights of the creditor. The effect is either to modify or
non-remittances of contribution (February 1991 to October 2000)
extinguish the original contract. In its extinctive form, the new
Pasay City Assistant Prosecutor Artemio Puti found probable cause to obligation replaces the original, extinguishing the obligor's obligations
indict respondent Martels for violation of Section 22 (a) and (b) in under the old contract.
14
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
penalty shall be a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) and imprisonment for
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12)
years.
15
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
SSS CASES
RULING:
16
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ
17
SSS CASES
ARIOLA.BELARMINO.DIATO.ESCASINAS.GALVEZ