Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
SOCIAL SECURITY LAW
Introduction (based on the website):
o the concept of social security evolved from an age old search of
man for protection against poverty, which breeds social ills
that 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.
Highlighting the words PROTECTION AGAINST POVERTY
o as atty. sees it, its not the poverty like people are
hungry, etc. because basically it is social security
o the protection against poverty envisioned here is the
loss of income or financial burden (work because
you are sick, giving birth, member dies, etc.)
What are the contingencies envisioned by SS law?
o Disability (permanent or temporal), sickness,
maternity, old-age (retirement), death and other
contingencies
atty. questioned the other contingencies.
Because if you have this
hazard, there is
corresponding protection,
how? In the form of benefits
There is no benefit to a catch all
phrase
There is no benefit in
unemployment in SSS
There are only benefits in the
SS law regarding the disability,
sickness, maternity, old-age,
death. MAO RA WALA NA LAIN.
Why social legislation?
o Social security
It is a form of a social insurance
Membership is mandatory as a
rule
There is shared payment of
contributions (employer and
employee contributes. Except
for self-employed)
History
In 1948, Pres. Manuel Roxas proposed a bill seeking to
establish a social security system for wage earners and low-
salaried employees. This was recommended in his SONA.
After the death of Roxas, Quirino created the Social Security
Study Commission on July 7, 1948. The creation of the
commission was his first official act upon his assumption of
office.
In 1954, Rep. Floro Crisologo, Senators Cipriano Pirmicias and
Manuel Briones introduced bills on the report of the Social
Security Study Commission on the House of Representatives
and in the Senate. These bills were consolidated and enacted
into RA 1161 or the Social Security Act of 1954
o RA 8282 was an amendment of RA 1161
o 1161 was only implemented only on 1957 because
of objections coming from the business side, labor
groups (also objected about the effect of the law on
their CBA)
o In 1957, amendatory bills are passed in Congress.
These bills were the basis of RA 1792, which
amended the original SS Act (pilot plan deleted,
concept of integration was introduced)
o On sept. 1, 1957, the SS Act of 1954 or SS Law was
finally implemented. Thus, with the implementation
of the SS Law, the government also adopted the
social insurance approach to social security,
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
covering the employed segment of the labor force in
the private sector. In 1993, household helpers
earning at least 1000 were included in the
compulsory coverage of employees.
o Jan 1, 1992-beginning of compulsory coverage of
self-employed farmers and fisherman earning at
least 1500 per month or 18000 annually
o Feb. 1992- RA 7192 (an act promoting the
integration of women as full and equal partners of
men in development and nation building and for
other purposes) is signed into law, providing, inter
alia, for the voluntary coverage of non-working
spouses of SSS members under the SSS (still the
governing rule)
o Apr. 23, 1992- under RA 7322 (an act increasing
maternity benefits in favor of women workers in the
private sector), an increase in daily maternity from
45 to 60 days for normal delivery, abortion or
miscarriage and from 60 to 78 for caesarean
delivery.
What if the women employee would now
want to go back to work even before the
expiration of her maternity leave, would
you allow/accept/recommend her to
work?
a It is ok as long as there is med
cert and sign of waiver of
assumption of risk
o Sept 1 1993- beginning of compulsory coverage of
household helpers earning at least 1000 a month
under RA 7655
Effectivity of coverage of kasambahay is
on the first day of employment
o May 3, 1994- RA 7688 entitled act giving
representation to women in the SSC, amending for
the purpose Sec 3(a) of RA 1161, as amended is
approved.
o May 1 1994- RA 7699 an act instituting limited
portability scheme in the Social Security Insurance
System by totalizing the workers creditable service
of contributions in each of the system
o August 2000- a direct housing loan program for
trade union members and OFWs were offered; and
the retirement age of underground mine workers
was lowered from 60 to 55 yrs. Old
o July 2001- the flexifund program for OFWs was
offered, which was a provident fund that allowed the
OFWs to contribute beyond the maximum level so
they can avail higher benefits. The Covenant of
Service Program, SSS commitment to significantly
reduce the processing time of member benefits, was
launched.
Programs of SSS
o Social Security Program- shared contribution; WON
work connected
o Employees Compensation Program (EC)-only
employer pays; must be work connected
What is the importance of one system (SSS) administering two
programs?
o If there is a claim under SS Law, you file SSS (SS
Commission)
o If there is a claim on employees compensation
private sector, you file SSS (EC Commission for EC
related claims)
What is importance of the SS Commission?
o To hear cases
o Sec. 5 Settlement of disputes- (a) any dispute
arising under this Act with respect to coverage,
1
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or
any other matter related thereto, shall be
cognizable by the Commission, and any case filed
with respect thereto shall be heard by the
Commission, or any of its members, or by hearing
officers duly authorized by the Commission and
decided within 20 days after the submission of
evidence
SSS vs. Atlantic Gulf
Which body has jurisdiction to entertain a 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?
From the allegations of respondents' complaint, it readily
appears that there is no longer any dispute with respect to
respondents' accountability to the SSS. Respondents 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. 270-s. 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.
Examples of Benefits sa Sec. 5
o SSS v. Bailon
o Signey v. SSS
A deceased member of SSS. Ang nag away
sa iyang benefits, iyang illegitimate
children and common-law wivessss.
Dispute is who is/are entitled to the
benefits of SSS.
Who will resolve? SSC
Hearing can be made by hearing officers duly authorized by
the Commission
o Question: if there are lawyers in the regional office,
can they be authorized by the Commission to hear
cases under the jurisdiction of SSC?
No because conflict of interest. In every
case, SSS intervenes (a juridical entity
which can sue or be sued).
Jurisdiction (Section 5)
Any dispute arising under RA 8282 with respect to coverage, benefits,
contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto,
shall be cognizable by the Commission, and any case filed with respect
thereto shall be heard by the Commission, or any of its members, or by
hearing officers duly authorized by the Commission and decided within
twenty (20) days after the submission of the evidence. The filing,
determination and settlement of disputes shall be governed by the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
RP v. Asiapro Cooperative (example of dispute on coverage)
Respondent Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-
members. Its primary objectives are to provide savings and credit
facilities and to develop other livelihood services for its owners-
members.
In the discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives,
respondent cooperative entered into several Service Contracts with
Stanfilco a division of Dole Philippines, 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 respondent 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
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
from the service surplus generated by the quality and amount of services
they rendered, which is determined by the Board of Directors of the
respondent cooperative.
In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of
1997, the owners-members of the respondent cooperative who were
assigned to Stanfilco requested the services of the latter to register them
with petitioner SSS as self-employed and to remit their contributions as
such
SSS sent a letter to Asiapro that based on the Service Contracts
it executed with Stanfilco, respondent cooperative is actually a manpower
contractor supplying employees to Stanfilco and for that reason, it is an
employer of its owners-members working with Stanfilco. Thus,
respondent cooperative should register itself with petitioner SSS as an
employer and make the corresponding report and remittance of premium
contributions in accordance with the Social Security Law
ATTY:
You have a cooperative registered CBA. And the cooperative
have owners and member. This cooperative has a contract with a
Stanfilco and because they have this service contract, owners-members
were giving services to Stanfilco and in return StanfilCo will pay the
cooperative and the Board will thereafter declare, we call it shares in the
service surplus. And the owners-members are paid by the board out of
the income that the cooperative earned. So that was there arrangement.
They call it wage. They dont call it salary. Now, it reached a point where
the cooperative realized that its good that our members should register
with SSS. They have the intention to register that our owner-members are
self-employed.
SSS said no. You are not to register as self-employed because you
cooperative is the employer and the owner-members are the employees.
Because of that there was a dispute. And it reached Supreme Court.
SC:
Who should determine e-e?
Since the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent cooperative 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 employer-employee
relationship that exists between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members.
ATTY:
The coverage of the SS Law is based on the existence on such
relationship. Meaning, if there is no relationship, there an no compulsory
coverage. That is the rule.
However, the exception is purely casual employment. This is
one of the exceptions to the coverage of the SS Law.
Rule: Compulsory Coverage is based in the existence on such relationship.
So the question is who will determine.
The question on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). Article 217 of the Labor Code enumerating
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC provides that:
ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION.
(a) . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising
from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in
domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a
claim for reinstatement.
ATTY:
So, on the issue on who will determine the e-e relationship in
the eyes of the SS Law, it is the Social Security Commission. But, later on
2
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
also, when we reach the discussion about questions like what if there is
already a final and executory judgment from the labor court regarding EE
relationship, is SSC bound?
We have cases which say that SSC is bound by the finding of the
final and executory judgment on the existence or absence of ee
relationship. This is to avoid to conflicting decisions coming from two
quasi-judicial bodies.
Although the aforesaid provision speaks merely of claims for
Social Security, 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 an employer-employee
relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage of the Social
Security System is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC
and falls within the jurisdiction of the SSC which is primarily charged
with the duty of settling disputes arising under the Social Security Law of
1997.
ATTY:
Section 5 says about dispute regarding coverage, benefits etc.
But what you find here (Section 217) is the word claims. Is this covered
under dispute in Section 5? Claims are undeniably rooted by in the
coverage by SSC.
So how to determine the relationship? Use the four-fold test.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever
means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
worker's conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall
consideration. The most important element is the employer's control of
the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done,
but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.
All elements are present in this case.
First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the
respondent cooperative which has the exclusive discretion in the selection
and engagement of the owners-members as well as its team leaders who
will be assigned at Stanfilco.
Second. The weekly stipends or the so-called shares 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 existing 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 shares in the service surplus are indeed wages, because
these are given to the owners-members as compensation in rendering
services to respondent cooperative's client, Stanfilco.
ATTY:
When you draft a contract, and the payment and whatever you
call it, and you will say that the equivalent is not lower than that
prescribed by the existing labor law obligations, that is in reality wages.
Third. It is also stated in the above-mentioned Service Contracts that it is
the respondent cooperative which has the power to investigate, discipline
and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who were
rendering services at Stanfilco.
ATTY:
Cooperative has the power.
Fourth. It is the respondent cooperative which has the sole control over
the manner and means of performing the services under the Service
Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods of work. Also,
the respondent cooperative is solely and entirely responsible for its
owners-members, team leaders and other representatives at Stanfilco.
ATTY:
One case was cited by the cooperative, Ferrer Calleja (not sure
sa name, wala sa ppt), where it was stated by the SC that the owners-
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
members cannot bargain against the cooperative because how can the
owners-members bargain themselves. But the issue in this case is not the
same with the case at bar. The issue in Ferrer Calleja is about the right to
bargain. While the issue here is whether the cooperative is an employer.
Supreme Court emphasized that in a cooperative, the affair is vested in
the Board of Directors, not owners-members. In the facts, it is the BOD
who decides how much will be paid to the owners-members.
It is logical that the cooperative can enter into an employment with its
owners. It is the board that decides relative to this.
In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc., it actually recognized that
an owner-member of a cooperative can be its own employee.
The management of the affairs of the respondent cooperative is vested in
its Board of Director and not in its owners-members as a whole.
SSS v. Bailon
Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice) contracted
marriage in Barcelona, Sorsogon.
More than 15 years later, Bailon filed before the then Court of
First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon a petition to declare Alice presumptively
dead.
By Order, the CFI granted the petition.
Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared
presumptively dead, Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque
(respondent) in Casiguran, Sorsogon.
Bailon, who was a member of the Social Security System (SSS)
since 1960 and a retiree pensioner thereof, died.
Respondent thereupon filed a claim for funeral benefits, and
was granted P12,000 by the SSS
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia), who claimed to be a daughter of
Bailon and one Elisa Jayona (Elisa) contested before the SSS the release to
respondent of the death and funeral benefits. She claimed that Bailon
contracted three marriages in his lifetime, the first with Alice, the second
with her mother Elisa, and the third with respondent, all of whom are still
alive; she, together with her 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
SSS cancelled the pension.
Respondent protested asserting that her marriage with Bailon
was not declared before any court of justice as bigamous or unlawful,
hence, it remained valid and subsisting for all legal intents and purposes
as in fact Bailon designated her as his beneficiary.
When raised to SSC, it held that Teresita Jarque-Bailon is not the
legitimate spouse and primary beneficiary of SSS member Clemente
Bailon.
SC:
That the SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to SSS
coverage, benefits and contributions, there is no doubt. In so exercising
such power, however, it cannot review, much less reverse, decisions
rendered by courts of law as it did in the case at bar when it declared that
the December 10, 1970 CFI Order was obtained through fraud and
subsequently disregarded the same, making its own findings with respect
to the validity of Bailon and Alice's marriage on the one hand and the
invalidity of Bailon and respondent's marriage on the other.
In interfering with and passing upon the CFI Order, the SSC virtually acted
as an appellate court. 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.
In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, in accordance
with law, Bailon's and respondent's marriage prior to the former's death
3
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
in 1998, respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of
Bailon.
ATTY:
SSS member who was married with his legal wife. And after
several years of marriage, the sss member filed a petition to the CFI to
presumptively declared his wife dead.
After that the member married Bailon, the respondent. Then
the member died. Bailon filed the application to entitlement to SSS.
It was found that the first wife was in reality living. But nothing
was done. The law that governs marriage was still the Civil Code. And we
know that under the CC, we need to file a case to declare the
presumptiveness as void. Unlike in the Family Code, you only execute an
affidavit of appearance and register it.
SC said that insofar as the marriage to Bailon is concerned, that
was legitimate. But how is that related to jurisdiction? With SSS decided
that Bailon is not entitled because there was fraud in the presumptive
death of Alice. It said that the CFI order was obtained with fraud.
SC said that you have no right. You are co-equal with the RTC. It cannot be
done. It cannot review much less reverse decisions rendered by courts of
law.
SSS acted as an appellate court not valid.
Signey v SSS
FACTS:
When the deceased member died, there were I think two or
three illegitimate children of the deceased member. And then, you have
Signey who is the common law wife of the deceased member. Upon death,
Signey filed a claim with SSS. There was objection, a grandchild or
daughter from another common law wife.
Eventually, it was the finding of the SSS that Signey was a
common law wife because they were able to find a certificate of marriage
registered with the LCR. SSS upheld saying that Signey is not entitled
because you are a common law wife.
SC said that it will not disturb findings of facts. It is supported
by a substantial evidence.
Signey argued that she has a waiver of the legal wife, so she
entitled. Supreme Court said that the legal wife in the first place is not
entitled, because she is not dependent. Because the legal wife was co-
habiting with another man. So the waiver will not also entitle you.
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 well-known that is 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 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 on21 November 1967. She did not even try to allege
and prove any infirmity in the marriage between the deceased
and Editha.
2016 Rules of Procedure of SSC
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
ATTY:
The first procedure came in 1990, second in 1997 and now we
have 2016. Akon lang balikon, in case you forgot, in the petition, SSS is
always impleaded as the intervenor, indispensable party. You should be
using the correct and the accurate terms. Use Petitioner and Respodent
and SSS as intervenor.
*Sir discusses salient changes
Salient changes:
1) Filing of petition at any Regional Commission Legal Department
ATTY:
In 1997 rules, the filing is in Manila only because that is the
office of SSC, Makati City, Legazpi Village. So mu-file ka personally or by
mail. Under the new rules, there is a regional commission legal
department established in the 2016 rules. This department can receive
petitions filed. The problem is there is no department yet.
2) Sworn Certification Against Forum Shopping
Before, it was only to be verified. Now it should be verified and
sworn.
3) Voluntary Appearance
ATTY:
There are modes of service of summons. Service to individuals,
Service to domestic corporations, service extra-territorial
You have this section that if the respondent voluntary appears,
it is tantamount to service of summons.
4) Jurisdiction
- Denial of benefit claim, loan application or other matters
related, petition be accompanied by certification/resolution
from benefits review committee and/or Flag Clearing
Committee
ATTY:
What you will find here is a reiteration of section 5 plus there is
a requirement. If your petition involves benefit claim and it was denied sa
branch or sa region level. Then you elevate it through petition. This is an
original petition, do not assume na ang branch mu-elevate. There is an
additional requirement if your petition is about denial of a benefit claim
or loan application or other matters related. The petition must be
accompanied by the certification or resolution from the corresponding
committee. Kinahanglan ug document nga ang imong claim was denied.
So that the commission will accept your petition.
Although, there is the transitory provision, meaning within 2 years from
the effeectivty, if you do not have that requirement, the commission is
liberal in accepting the petition.
5) Venue
- Visayas Commission Legal Department if petitioner resides in
Visayas (Hearing of Petition)
ATTY:
In 1997 rules Makati
In 2016 pwede na sa Commission Legal Department
Under the rules, there is one department in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao
6) Mandatory Pre-Hearing
- add letters:
(g) propriety of rendering judgment on pleadings or summary
judgment or dismissing action if valid grounds exists;
(h) advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings;
4
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
(i) necessity of requiring SSS to produce records and/or the
private parties to bring the original (R V, S 1)
7) Submission of Position Papers
- 30 days; failure to submit constitutes waiver
ATTY:
In labor law, the submission of position paper 10 days. Sa
ilaa, mas taas taas, 30 days. In 1997 rules, there was no period indicated.
Ang pagsubmit is at the time of pre-hearing. Now lahi na.
8) Sec 8 1997 Rules of SSC (Extent of Cross-Examination) was deleted
ATTY:
After submission of position paper, the commission determines
if there is a need for clarificatory hearing.
9) How Appeal Taken (R VII, S. 2) Rule specified
ATTY:
Change is the rule is specified. Para dili masayop ang lawyer to
appeal, the specific rule is specified.
To the Court of Appeals Rule 43 (by petition for review)
To the Supreme Court Rule 45 (pure question of law)
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.
Ordinary Appeal vs. Petition for Review
Ordinary appeal governs only in the courts of law (by notice of appeal
under Rule 41)
Petition for review you have to make a pleading. You state the parties,
facts, arguments etc. and file it with the Court of Appeals. It
is an original petition. So kung naa kay mga kuwang sa
petitions ei imohang ptr karaan pa, daghan ang causes na
madismiss ang imong petition.
** When there is a claim filed in the SSS, nobody is allowed to get
attorneys fees. It was 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. In fact
you will be penalized for exacting attorneys fees. It is allowed in SSC only
up to 10% and only if there is an award. Dili pwede i-advance.
10) Transitory Provision R. X) lacking approved resolution (for 2 years)
Approved: May 25, 2016
Effectivity: Following the publication (sir does not know when)
There is this section in SSS Law, when there is a claim filed, no body is
allowed to get attornerys fees
Criminal actions
Are criminal offenses under SSS law within the jurisdiction of the SSC?
Do criminal offenses under SSS Law constitute as disputes with respect to
coverage, etc.?
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
ATTY:
Offenses under SS Law. What are these offenses ?
1) Failure to register as employer
2) Failure to report you employee
3) Failure on the part of the employer to deduct the
contribution of the employee
4) If the employer deducted but did not remit
In addition to estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
Who has jurisdiction?
Criminal offenses for violations of the law are within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Section 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 RPC: 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 on Metro Manila at the option of the SSS.
So who has jurisdiction?
According to SSS, it has the option to file a criminal case either
before SSC or regular court citing Section 28(i) but there is a directive
that criminal cases be filed before the regular courts. (Sir called the SSS
office)
Section 5 says about dispute arising under this Act with respect
to coverage, benefits, contributions, and penalties thereon and any other
matter related thereto under SSC. There is no express provision on the
jurisdiction of criminal action.
ATTY:
I submit that SSC has no jurisdiction. There is no express
provision on the jurisdiction of SSC in criminal cases. Two, SSC has no
power as that granted to RTC relative to criminal cases. Three, by
experience criminal cases are filed with the RTC.
Example:
Warrant of arrest. SSC has no power to issue warrant.
SSC has also no power to give commitment order.
Is there a need of consent from SSC before a criminal case may be filed?
NO. There is an option.
Who is an employer under SS Law?
(c) Employer any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who
carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or
activity of any kind and uses the services of another person who is under
his orders as regards the employment, EXCEPT the Government and any
of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including
corporations owned or controlled by the Government: Provided; that a
self-employed person shall be both employee and employer at the same
time.
SSC v. Alba
Whether an administrator could be considered an employer? Yes.
Far Alba was no ordinary administrator. He was no less than
the son of the hacienda's owner and as such he was an owner-in-waiting
prior to his father's death.
ATTY:
I think the SC has stretched too much. The circumstances are
very peculiar. Because even if he was called an administrator, ang anak sa
farmowner, it was established by evidence. The onw who hired and give
wage, si Alba.
5
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Lamboso testified that he was selected and his services were
engaged by Far Alba himself. Corollarily, Far Alba held the prerogative of
terminating Lamboso's employment. Lamboso also testified in a direct
manner that he had been paid his wages by Far Alba. This testimony was
seconded by Lamboso's co-worker.
Not to be forgotten is the definition of an employer under
Article 167 (f) of the Labor Code which deals with employees'
compensation and state insurance fund. It defines a person as "any
individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, corporation or legal
representative thereof". Plainly, Far Alba, as the hacienda administrator,
acts as the legal representative of the employer and is thus an employer
within the meaning of the law liable to pay the SS contributions.
Who is an employee under SS Law?
(d) Employee Any person who performs services for an employer in
which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who
receives compensation for such services, where there is an employer-
employee relationship: Provided, That a self-employed person shall be
both employee and employer at the same time.|||
ATTY:
Probationary employee? YES! There is no qualification.
Probationary employee is not purely casual employee.
Exceptions of employee:
1. Casual Employee
2. Employees of bona fide independent contractors (but qualified by law
bonafide)
SSS v. CA
Whether or not an agricultural laborer who was hired on "pakyaw" basis
Can be considered an employee entitled to compulsory coverage and
corresponding benefits under the Social Security Law.
ATTY:
It was answered in the affirmative because of the four-fold test.
Based on the facts. He worked for most part of the year exclusively for the
Ayalde. Owner contended that his employee is a seasonal employee. But a
seasonal employee can also be considered as a employee under the SS
Law because it is not a purely casual employee.
Advice: If you are given a particular situation and the issue is whether the
employee is under the SS Law, check is this purely casual employee? If
the answer is no, then it is under the SS Law. Unless, he is under the
second exception which is employee of a bona fide independent
contractor.
SC:
There was no shred of evidence to show that Tana was only a seasonal
worker. All witnesses, including Ayalde, testified that Tana and his family
resided in the plantation. The only logical explanation for this set up was
that Tana was working for most part of the year exclusively for
Ayalde. A closer scrutiny of the records revealed that while Ayalde may
not have directly imposed on Tana the manner and methods to follow in
performing his tasks, she did exercise control through her overseer.
Under the circumstances, the relationship between Ayalde and Tana has
more of the attributes of employer-employee than that of an independent
contractor hired to perform a specific project.
Lazaro v. SSC
Is a sales supervisor of a company engaged in the sale of home
appliances an employee of such company?
SSC, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, found that Laudato was
a sales supervisor and not a mere agent. As such, Laudato oversaw and
supervised the sales agents of the company, and thus was subject to the
control of management as to how she implements its policies and its end
results. SC is disinclined to reverse this finding, in the absence of
countervailing evidence from Lazaro and also in light of the fact that
Laudato's calling cards from Royal Star indicate that she is indeed a sales
supervisor.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
SC found that Laudato was a sales supervisor and not a mere
agent As such, Laudato oversaw and supervised the sales agents of the
company, and thus was subject to the control of management as to how
she implements its policies.
ATTY:
Supervisor is an employee. But on Insurance Agents, there is no
hard and fast rule. Depende kung unsa ang circumstances sa case. So if
there is power on the part of insurance agent as to the means and
methods of the agent notwithstanding that there is a contract between
the principal company and that agent, then an agent can either be under
the SS Law or not.
Gapayao(?)
The same issue with this case. It was found here that he was regularly
employed. He worked as construction worker, helper, grocery.
In the case of Alba, Rabayao, Lazaro, SSS vs. CA, the SC dealt
with the 4 elements of employer-employee relationship. One way of
determining the employer-employee relationship is to rely on Labor
Code. You look at the definition of employer and employee and based on
this you conclude whether there is employer-employee relationship.
Are laborers continuously assigned to construction projects as
carpenters, masons, etc. compulsorily covered under SS Law?
Chua vs. CA
The mandatory coverage of RA 1161, as amended, is premised
on the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
In this case, private respondents are employees of Chua, Chua
have control over the results of the work done, as well as the means and
methods by which the same were accomplished.
Xxx regardless of the nature of their employment, whether it is
regular or project, private respondents, are subject of the compulsory
coverage under the SSS law, their employment not falling under the
exceptions provided by the law. This rule is in accord with the Courts
ruling in Luzon Stevedoring Corp. vs. SSS to the effect that all employees,
regardless of tenure, would qualify for compulsory membership in the
SSS, except those classes of employees contemplated in Section 8 (j) of
Social Security Act.
The underline phrase means that when you look at SS Law,
there are employments which are covered and therefore employer must
report and employee must be reported. There are also employments
which are not covered under the SS law. These are the exceptions. It is
provided in Section 8 (j).
(j) Employment. Any service performed by an employee for his
employer, except
1. Agricultural labor when performed by a share or leasehold
tenant or worker who is not paid any regular daily wage or
base pay and who does not work for an uninterrupted period
of at least six months in a year; (As amended by Sec. 4, R.A.
2658)
2. Domestic service in a private home;
3. Employment purely casual and not for the purposes of
occupation or business of the employer;
4. Service performed by an individual in the employ of his son,
daughter, or spouse, and service performed by a child under
the age of twenty-one years in the employ of his parents;
5. Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel
by an employee if he is employed when such vessel is outside
the Philippines;
6
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
6. Service performed in the employ of the Philippine
Government or an instrumentality or agency thereof;
7. Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or
international organization, or their wholly-owned
instrumentality: Provided, however, That his 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. (As amended by Sec.
1, R.A. 3839; Sec. 3, RA 4857; and Sec. 5, P.D. No. 735, S-1975)
8. Such other services performed by temporary employees who
may be excluded by regulation of the Commission. Employees
of bona fide independent contractors shall not be deemed
employees of the employer engaging the services of said
contractors. (As amended by Sec. 5, P.D. No. 735, S-1975)
So based on this, according to Atty. Cs opinion, when you are
given a question of whether a person is an employee under SS Law and
therefore that person should be reported for compulsory coverage, you
look at the exceptions. If that person does not fall under the exceptions
then you apply the law in SSS- All employees regardless of the nature of
their employment are covered.
How to determine whether there is employer-employee relationship
1. Four-fold test
2. Definition of employee and employer
3. If the person falls under the exception in Sec. 8 (j)
Effect of judgment of relationship
Final judgment on relationship/conclusiveness of judgment
A final and executory NLRC decision (to effect that respondent
spouses were not the employees of petitioner) was binding
on the criminal case violation of RA 1161 as amended.
Co vs. People
Facts:
Petitioner was charged criminally by claimed employees for violation of
SS Law for non-remittance of contributions. Prior to criminal case, a final
decision of NLRC held that the claimed employees were independent
contractors and not employees. Petitioner filed a motion to quash.
SC:
The mandatory coverage of RA1161, as amended is premised on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. The final and
executory NLRC decision (to the effect that the respondent spouses
were not employees of petitioner) was binding on this criminal case
for violation of RA 1161, as amended. Accordingly, the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion when it refused to grant petitioners motion to
quash the information.
SSC vs. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc.
Issue:
Whether res judicata applies so as to preclude the SSC from resolving
anew the existence of employer-employee relationship, which issue was
previously determined in the NLRC case?
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
SC:
Res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment in the NLRC
case pertaining to a finding of an absence of employer-employee
relationship between Angeles and respondents is conclusive on the SSC
case
In Co vs. People, whether the judgment of NLRC is binding in
the criminal case while in SSC vs. Rizal Poultry, there is final judgment in
NLRC and whether it is binding in the SSC case. There is no jurisprudence
yet whether a decision of the criminal case on the presence or absence of
employer-employee relationship is also binding in the NLRC case.
When does judgment become final and executory?
In labor cases, appeal is only within 10 days. When is there an appeal?
There is an appeal from LA to NLRC by virtue of memorandum of appeal
aside from paying the docket fees. There is no appeal from NLRC to CA.
There are two instances where there can be final judgment in Labor
Court
1. There is decision in LA and there is no appeal taken within 10
days that means LAs decision is final and executory
2. If there is an appeal of LAs decision, NLRC then will have a
decision and it becomes final and executory. Your proof is
certificate of finality to be issued by the Executive Clerk of
Court of the NLRC.
There is no appeal from NLRC to CA because:
1. Based on the NLRC 2011 Rules, judgment becomes final and
executor.
2. Appeal to CA is by reason of grave abuse of discretion
The issue whether the judgment is final and executory has already
reach the SC, way problema because thats what happen to Co vs. People
and Rizal Poultry. However, there are issues for instance that upon the
issuance of the Certificate of finality in the NLRC and you went to CA and
your petition for certiorari is still pending, what if the judgment of the
NLRC is there is E-E relationship, can the employees go to court and file
criminal cases against the employer? This is one of the important issues
to be resolved because one will always argue that judgment is not yet
final because of the pending certiorari in the CA and the other will argue
that judgment is already final because there is already a decision form the
NLRC.
Another issue is when the certiorari is still pending in the CA, a
criminal case was filed and there was warrant of arrest issued to the
accused, accused posted bail, evidence was presented by the prosecution
and here comes the decision of the CA reversing the decision of NLRC on
the ground that there is grave abuse of discretion. The reversal was
elevated to the SC. These are the issues yet to be resolved.
In CO vs. People, there is a decided part of judgment from the NLRC
notwithstanding the final judgment and even if in that judgment the
claimed employees were considered independent contractor and not
employees, these claimed employees file a criminal case against Co. Co
filed a motion to quash on the ground that the facts alleged does not
constitute an offense. The RTC denied the motion. So CO appealed to the
SC. SC held that there is already the NLRC decision and it is final and
executor and it is binding in the criminal case applying the doctrine of Res
judicata.
There are 2 modes of Res Judicata; One, is bar by prior judgment and
Second is conclusiveness of the judgment. In this case it was not res
judicata by prior judgment because there are two different cause of
action, one is a labor case and the other is a criminal case. What is applied
is conclusiveness of judgment. You have substantial identity of the issue
7
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
or cause of action because the existence or absence of E-E relationship
has already been resolved in the labor case. Thus it is binding to the
criminal case. In Rizal Poultry, you also have the same NLRC final
judgment and issue is whether it is binding to the SSC case, again SC
applied the principle of res judicata.
What if the case is still pending in NLRC and another case in
RTC is also pending? So which case will have to move on? Atty. Cs
opinion that if there is a final judgment in the RTC on the violation of the
SS law and it is on the issue of whether there is E-E relationship, you can
always argue on the conclusiveness of the judgment, dont use the bar by
prior judgment.
TYPES OF COVERAGE:
1. COMPULSORY
i. Coverage of Employees
ii. Coverage of Employers
iii. Coverage of Self-Employed
2. VOLUNTARY
i. Coverage of Separated Members
ii. Coverage of Overseas Filipino Workers
(OFWs)
iii. Coverage of non-working Spouse of SSS
Members
COMPULSORY COVERAGE
Coverage of Employees *MEMORIZE THIS PLEASE!
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
In Chua vs. CA, the question of whether these laborers
assigned in the construction projects are compulsorily covered by SS Law.
SC ruled that they do not fall under the exceptions; they are covered
regardless of the nature of their employment thus the SC found that they
performed work which was usually necessary and desirable.
This one is the element of the first exception which is purely
casual employment therefore the work to be performed is NOT necessary
and desirable to the business. Even if you are a regular employee,
seasonal employee or project employee, pursuant to Chua, if you dont fall
under the exception thus you apply the rule that ALL EMPLOYEES,
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF EMPLOYEMENT IS COVERED.
Coverage of Employers
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
a. An employer, or any person who uses the
services of another person in business, trade,
industry or any undertaking.
1. A social, civil, professional, charitable
and other non-profit organization which
hire the services of employees are
considered employers.
b. 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.
Coverage of Self-Employed Persons
A self-employed person, regardless of trade, business or
occupation, with an income of at least P1,000 a month and not over 60
years old, should register with the SSS. Included but not limited to are the
following self-employed persons: self-employed professionals; business
partners, single proprietors and board directors; actors, actresses,
directors, scriptwriters and news correspondents who do not fall with the
term employee; professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys;
farmers and fisherfolks; and workers in the informal sector such cigarette
vendors, watch-your-car-boys, hospitality girls, among others.
VOLUNTARY COVERAGE
Coverage of Separated Members
A member who is separated from employment or
ceased to be self-employed/OFW/non-working spouse and
would like to continue paying his/her contributions.
Coverage of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)
A Filipino recruited in the Philippines by a foreign-
based employer for employment abroad; having a source of
income in the foreign country; and permanent resident in a
foreign country.
Coverage of non-working Spouse of SSS Members
A person legally married to a currently employed
and actively paying SSS member who devotes full time in the
management of household and family affairs may be covered
on a voluntary basis provided there is approval of the working
spouse. The person should never have been a member of the
SSS. The contributions will be based on 50% of the working
spouses last posted monthly salary credit but in no case shall it
be lower than P1,000.
Can a gov. employee be covered by voluntary coverage under
SSS? Are they covered under self-employed? NO. Because the
requirement in SS Law is that self-employed person, regardless of trade,
business or occupation, with an income of at least P1,000 a month and
not over 60 years old. Atty. C was informed that you cannot be covered
under self-employed because you dont have a certificate of registration.
You need to present a certification from the DTI. That the same case as
the government because there are certain agencies that will require
lawyers to present DTI registration. There are agencies that will require
lawyers to present business permits. Atty. C is not sure how SSC will
handle this kind of situation.
Effectivity of coverage
Compulsory coverage
1. For an employee on the first day of employment
8
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
2. For an employer on the first day the employer hires
employee/s.
a. 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.
What if the employer did not report the employee on the first day?
Does it mean that the coverage will start on the day the employer report
the employee for the coverage? NO, it will start in the 1st day of
employment.
If the employer did not pay the in the SSS, what SSS would do is file a
case against the employer.
Voluntary coverage
1. For OFW upon first payment of contribution, in case of
initial coverage.
2. For non-working spouse upon first payment of
contribution.
3. For separated member on the month the person
resumed payment of contribution.
Legal Dependents of Member
The legal beneficiaries of a member are:
Legally married dependent spouse until he or she remarries;
Until he/she remarries is not defined by the SS Law
but Atty. Cs opinion that the principle in GSIS
regarding the application will also apply in SSS. In
GSIS, if there is a remarriage benefit is cut out
because the surviving spouse is not anymore
dependent on the deceased member.
Dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted and
illegitimate children.
These two are primary beneficiaries.
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.
In absence of primary, secondary and person designated, the
legal heirs are entitled.
If no legal heirs, then the State.
Dependents
(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from
the member;
(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed,
and has not reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over
twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a
minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of
self-support, physically or mentally; and
(3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the
member
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
Revised IRR of GSIS Act of 1997 (2010)
Rule I:
1.23. GAINFUL OCCUPATION- Ant productive activity that
provides income of at least equal to the prevailing minimum
compensation of government employees.
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
o Defined as any productive activity that provides he
member with income at least equal to the minimum
compensation of government employees (IRR, Sec. 1.
17)
SSS vs. Delos Santos
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
The member here is Antonio and the legitimate wife is Gloria.
Not less than a year after Gloria remarried in the Philippines. After that
she went back with Antonio where they had children. After several years,
she went to US, she divorced Antonio and remarried an American.
Antonio also remarried here. When he died the second wife claimed the
benefits, Gloria also want to claim the benefits. Gloria is still the legal
spouse but the question is she entitled to the benefits?
SC:
As found by both the SSC and the CA, the divorce obtained by
respondent against the deceased Antonio was not binding in this
jurisdiction. Under the Philippine law, only aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. The
divorce was obtained by Gloria while she is still a Filipino citizen and thus
covered by the policy against absolute divorces. It did not sever her
marriage ties with Antonio.
However, although respondent was the legal spouse of the
deceased, xxxx..she is still disqualifies to be his primary beneficiary under
the SS Law. She fails to fulfill the requirement of dependency upon
her deceased husband Antonio.
A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband
cannot be said to be dependent for support upon the husband,
absent any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that the
husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death, it
would be safe to presume that she was not dependent on the husband for
support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.
SSS vs. Fabila
Even if there is separation de facto, the wife of the deceased
husband can still prove evidence that she is dependent to the husband for
support by providing affidavits of refutable documents.
Employment services excluded (Sec. 8 (j) of RA 1161)
1. Purely casual employment and not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employer (Mansal v PP Go-Checo
Lumber Co.GR No.L-8017)
2. Services performed or in connection with an alien vessel by an
employee if he/she is employed when such vessel is outside
the Philippines
3. Services performed in the employ of the Philippine
government
4. Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or
international organization, or their wholly-owned
instrumentality unless there is an agreement with the
Philippine Government for the inclusion of such employees in
the SSS
5. Such other temporary services performed by temporary
employees which may be excluded by regulation. Employees of
bona fide independent contractors shall not be deemed
employees of the employer engaging the service of said
contractors.
PURE CASUAL
What was asked in the bar exam is that, you have a store or a
warehouse where the business is sale of goods and the roof was
damaged because of the typhoon. So the owner hired a carpenter to
repair the roof. It was held that the carpenter was under the purely
casual employment. Thus there is no need to report him under the
SS Law.
Mansal vs. PP Go-Checo Lumber Co
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 mechanic would be considered as purely casual because the
preparation of the mill is not the actual work or business of the same
sawmill but the sawing lumber. But the piling up of lumber is work
directly connected with the business of a lumber yard. Lumber must be
sorted and piled up in groups according to sizes to facilitate handling and
sale. The piling up of lumber is, therefore, an ordinary part of work in a
lumber yard.
9
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Duties of employee-members
Among others:
Secure SS number
Ensure they are reported for coverage by their employers
Pay their monthly share.
Employer has the duty to deduct their salary. If the
employer does not report it is a violation. If
employer does not deduct is a violation. If the
employer deducts but does not remit it is still a
violation.
Duties of employer-members
Among others:
Require presentation of SS number of prospective employee
Report all employees for SS coverage within 30 days from date
of employment
Deduct from the employees the monthly SS contributions
based on schedule of contributions; pat their share of
contributions including Employees Compensation and remit
these contributions to SSS or accredited banks within first 10
calendar days following the month when said contributions are
due and applicable
Submit a summary of all contributions
Issue official receipts and maintain official records of
employment and deductions
Remit to SSS all salary, educational, stocks investment or
privatization loan amortization of their employees and submit
a form
Submit a summary of all employees loan amortization
Advance SS and EC sickness benefits once approved by SSS
Advance SS maternity benefits due
File for reimbursement for all legally advanced sickness
and maternity benefits
Benefits under social security program
Covered employees are entitled to a package of benefits under
social security and EC in the event of death, disability, sickness,
maternity, and old-age
Self-employed and voluntary members also get same benefits
except those benefits under the EC program
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.
Benefits under social security program
Covered employees are entitled to a package of benefits under
social security and EC in the event of death, disability, sickness,
maternity, and old-age
Self-employed and voluntary members also get same benefits
except those benefits under the EC program
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;
(sickness or injury may not be related to the work unlike
EC which requires that it must be because of the work.)
2. He has paid at least 3 months of contributions within the
12-month period immediately before the semester of
sickness/injury
a. In computing, exclude the semester of sickness. A
semester refers to two consecutive quarters ending
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
in the quarter of sickness. A quarter refers to three
consecutive months ending March, June, September
or December.
4. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and
5. He has notified the employer or SSS, if separated,
voluntary or self-employed.
b. 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
or member got sick while working or within
company premises.
How do you compute?
Average daily salary credit. You get the highest monthly
salary 180 number of days the employee is sick.
For example: SSS member gets sick in October 2006 for 20 days.
a. The semester of sickness would be from July 2006 to December
2006.
b. The 12-month period would be from July 2005 to June 2006
(where the six highest monthly salary credits 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.
Effect of failure or delay in notification
If employees notifies beyond period, confinement shall be
deemed to have started not earlier than the fifth day.
If employer notifies beyond period, employer shall be
reimbursed only for each day of confinement starting from the
10th calendar day immediately preceding the date of
notification to SSS.
If employee notified the employer but the latter failed to notify
SSS, employer shall have no right to recover the daily sickness
allowance advanced.
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member confined in
hospital/home:
1. For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed within 1 year from
last day of confinement;
2. For home, 1 year from start of illness.
Failure to file the claim within the prescribed period will result
to denial of claim.
Maternity Benefit
It is a daily cash allowance granted to female member who was
unable to work due to childbirth or miscarriage. Not necessary
that female is legally married.
It is equivalent to 100% of members average daily salary
credit multiplied by 60 days for normal delivery or
miscarriage, 78 days for caesarian section delivery.
Qualifications for entitlement:
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:
10
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages shall be paid starting May
24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)
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.
Disability Benefit
Disability any restriction or lack (lack from impairment) of ability to
perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal
for a human being.
Impairment any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or
anatomical structure or function.
Who is qualified?
A member who suffers partial or total permanent disability
with at least one monthly contribution paid to the SSS prior to the
semester of contingency.
Some total permanent disabilities:
1. Complete loss of sight of both eyes
2. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankles or wrists
3. Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs
4. Brain injury resulting to incurable imbecility or insanity
5. Such cases as determined and approved by SSS
Some partial permanent disabilities:
one thumb one big toe
one index finger one hand
one middle finger one arm
one ring finger one foot
one little finger one leg
hearing of one ear one ear
hearing of both ears both ears
sight of one eye
Ortega v. 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.
Types of disability benefits:
Monthly pension cash benefit paid to a disabled member who
has paid at least 36 monthly contributions to the SSS prior to the
semester of disability.
In addition to monthly pension, supplemental allowance of
P500 is paid to the total or partial disability pensioner.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
Lump sum amount granted to those who have not paid the
required 36 monthly contributions.
The member who suffers from permanent partial disability
shall receive his monthly pension for the duration of a certain number of
months assessed based on the degree of his disability.
Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim:
10 years from the date of occurrence of disability.
Retirement Benefit
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum paid
to a member who can no longer work due to old age.
Who may qualify?
1. A member who is 60 years old, separated from employment
or ceased to be self-employed, and has paid at least 120 monthly
contributions prior to the semester of retirement.
2. A member who is 65 years old whether employed or not and
has paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the semester of
retirement.
Dycaico v. SSS
Bonifacio S. Dycaico, member of the SSS, in his self-employed
data record, he named the petitioner, Elena P. Dycaico, and
their eight children as his beneficiaries. At that time, Bonifacio
and Elena lived together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage.
In June 1989, Bonifacio was considered retired and began
receiving his monthly pension from the SSS. He continued to
receive the monthly pension until he passed away on June 19,
1997. A few months prior to his death, however, Bonifacio
married the petitioner on January 6, 1997.
Shortly after Bonifacio's death, the petitioner filed with the SSS
an application for survivor's pension. Her application,
however, was denied on the ground that under Section 12-B(d)
of Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 8282 or the Social Security Law 2
she could not be considered a primary beneficiary of Bonifacio
as of the date of his retirement.
Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits. (d) Upon the death of the
retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his
retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension. . . .
SSC opined that under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282,
the primary beneficiaries who are entitled to survivor's
pension are those who qualify as such as of the date of
retirement of the deceased member. Hence, the petitioner, who
was not then the legitimate spouse of Bonifacio as of the date
of his retirement, could not be considered his primary
beneficiary.
SC:
The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-
B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282, which qualifies the term "primary
beneficiaries," is unconstitutional for it violates the due process and
equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Due process:
The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of
Rep. Act No. 8282 runs afoul of the due process clause as it
outrightly deprives the surviving spouses whose respective
marriages to the retired SSS members were contracted after the
latter's retirement of their survivor's benefits. There is outright
confiscation of benefits due such surviving spouses without giving
them an opportunity to be heard.
Equal protection:
Results in the classification of dependent spouses as primary
beneficiaries into two groups:
(1) Those dependent spouses whose respective
marriages to SSS members were contracted prior to the latter's
retirement; and
(2) Those dependent spouses whose respective
marriages to SSS members were contracted after the latter's
retirement.
For Underground Mineworkers:
11
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
1. Has reached the age of 55 years old and is an underground
mineworker for at least 5 years (either continuous or
accumulated) prior to the semester of retirement but whose
actual date of retirement is not earlier than March 13, 1998;
separated from employment or in the case of self-employed,
has ceased self-employment, and has paid at least 120 monthly
contributions prior to the semester of retirement.
2. has reached the age of 60 years old whether employed or not
and has paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the
semester of retirement.
Types of retirement benefits:
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
Aside from retirement benefit, retiree is entitled to a 13 th
month pension payable every December. All retiree pensioners prior
to effectivity of RA 7875 on March 4, 1995 are automatically
considered members of PhilHealth and he and his legal dependents
are entitled to its hospitalization benefits.
Death Benefit
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum paid
to the beneficiaries of a deceased member.
Types of death benefit:
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
Beneficiaries:
Primary: (1) Legitimate dependent spouse until the person
remarries; (2) dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted
and illegitimate children who are not yet 21 years old.
Secondary: In the absence of primary, dependent parents.
In their absence, any other person designated by member in
record.
Monthly pension depends on members paid contributions,
including the credited years of service (CYS) and the number of
dependent minor children but not to exceed five.
In addition to death benefit, beneficiaries are entitled to 13 th
month pension payable every December and funeral benefit
expenses which is paid to whoever shouldered the funeral expenses
of the deceased member. Funeral grant is P20,000 (effective Sept. 1,
2000).
If deceased member is survived by legitimate, legitimated or legally
adopted and illegitimate children, how is monthly pension to be
divided?
If survived by less than five, the illegitimate minor children will be
entitled to 50% of the share of the legitimate, legitimated
or legally adopted and 100% of the dependents pension
(equivalent to 10% of the members monthly pension or
P250 whichever is higher). Only five minor children,
beginning from the youngest, are entitled to dependents
pension. When there are more than 5, the legitimate,
legitimated or legally adopted shall be preferred.
For how long will the dependent child receive the pension?
When the child reaches 21 years old, gets married, gets employed or
dies. However, the dependents pension is granted for life
to children who are over 21 years old, provided they are
incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to physical
or mental disability which is congenital and acquired
during minority.
Is monthly pension for life?
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
The member who suffers from permanent total disability shall
receive monthly pension for life. However, the said
monthly pension shall be suspended: (1) if he recovers
from his permanent total disability; (2) if he resumes
employment; (3) if he fails to report for annual physical
exam upon notice by SSS. Domiciliary service (if member is
unable to report to SSS for exam) can be requested.
SS Number
The SS number assigned to a member is the lifetime number
and must always be used in all transactions with the SSS. The
member should not secure another number at any other time.
If the member wishes to secure another SS card and cannot
remember the SS number, it is advisable to inquire from the SSS
servicing branch.
If a member has more than one SS number, this will cause
delay in processing of the claim for benefits or loans in the future.
Thus, it is important that a member should have only one SS
number. Therefore, he/she should write or visit the SSS servicing
branch to request for the cancellation of the other number/s and
consolidation of all of the contributions under the retained number.
From then on, the retained number should be used in all
transactions with the SSS.
Signey v. SSS
(Who is entitled to the social security benefits of a Social Security System
(SSS) member who was survived not only by his legal wife, but also by
two common-law wives with whom he had six children?)
In the case at bar, the existence of a prior subsisting marriage
between the deceased and Editha is supported by 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.
SSC found (affirmed by CA and SC) based on the SSS field
investigation report that even if Editha was the legal wife, she was not
qualified to the death benefits since she herself admitted that she was not
dependent on her deceased husband for support inasmuch as she was
cohabiting with a certain Aquilino Castillo.
Resolving the determinative question of who between
petitioner and the illegitimate children of the deceased are the primary
beneficiaries lawfully entitled to the social security benefits accruing by
virtue of the latter's death, CA held that based on Section 8 (e) of R.A. No.
8282, a surviving spouse claiming death benefits as a dependent must be
the legal spouse. Petitioner's presentation of a marriage certificate
attesting to her marriage to the deceased was futile, according to the
appellate court, as said marriage is null and void in view of the previous
marriage of the deceased to Editha as certified by the Local Civil Registrar
of Cebu City.
The appellate court also held that the law is clear that for a
child to be qualified as dependent, he must be unmarried, not gainfully
employed and must not be 21 years of age, or if over 21 years of age, he is
congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated
and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally. And in this case,
only the illegitimate children of the deceased with Gina namely, Ginalyn
and Rodelyn, are the qualified beneficiaries as they were still minors at
the time of the death of their father. Considering petitioner is disqualified
to be a beneficiary and the absence of any legitimate children of the
deceased, it follows that the dependent illegitimate minor children of the
deceased should be entitled to the death benefits as primary
beneficiaries.
Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law
should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Since
petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary and because the deceased has
12
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
no legitimate child, it follows that the dependent illegitimate minor
children of the deceased shall be entitled to the death benefits as primary
beneficiaries. The SSS Law is clear that for a minor child to qualify as a
"dependent, the only requirements are that he/she must be below 21
years of age, not married nor gainfully employed.
SC:
In this case, the minor illegitimate children Ginalyn and
Rodelyn were born on 13 April 1996 and 20 April 2000, respectively. Had
the legitimate child of the deceased and Editha survived and qualified as a
dependent under the SSS Law, Ginalyn and Rodelyn would have been
entitled to a share equivalent to only 50% of the share of the said
legitimate child. Since the legitimate child of the deceased predeceased
him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary beneficiaries of
the deceased, are entitled to 100% of the benefits.
SSS v. De Los Santos
The obvious conclusion then is that a wife who is already
separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be
"dependent for support" upon the husband, absent any
showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that the
husband and wife were still living together at the time of his
death, it would be safe to presume that she was dependent on
the husband for support, unless it is shown that she is capable
of providing for herself.
Respondent herself admits that she left the conjugal abode on
two (2) separate occasions, to live with two different men. The
first was in 1965, less than one year after their marriage, when
she contracted a second marriage to Domingo Talens. The
second time she left Antonio was in 1983 when she went to the
US, obtained a divorce, and later married an American citizen.
In fine, these uncontroverted facts remove her from qualifying
as a primary beneficiary of her deceased husband.
Contributions
SSS 10.4% of the monthly salary credit not exceeding P15,000 and
payable by both employer (7.07%) and employee (3.33%) effective Jan. 1,
2007.
EC Starting Jan. 1, 2007, P10 for a monthly salary credit of P14,500 and
below and P30 for employees with an MSC of P15,000 and payable only
by employer.
Right to Institute
Sec. 22 - The right to institute the necessary action against the employer
may be commenced within twenty (20) years from the time the
delinquency is known or the assessment is made by the SSS, or from the
time the benefit accrues, as the case may be.
Lo v. CA
Private respondents application was denied because the SSS
records showed that he became a member only in 1983, and
contributions in his favor were remitted only from October
1983 to September 1984. As private respondent knew that SSS
contributions were deducted from his salary since compulsory
SSS coverage took effect in 1957, he filed a petition with the
Social Security Commission against Jose Lo and his son Rafael
Lo, who took over the management of the company. The
Commission upheld private respondent's claim and ordered
petitioner and Jose Lo to remit to the SSS the unpaid
contribution in favor of private respondent, including penalties
and charges.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the decision of the Commission. When the
appellate court denied his motion for reconsideration,
petitioner filed this petition for review by certiorari. He
contended that the lower court erred in ruling that the claim
had not yet prescribed. Petitioner claimed that Payment of SS
premium, as stated in the Decision, is an obligation created by
law hence, without need of demand, it becomes due on the date
when such payment should be made. Hence, under Article
1150 [of the Civil Code], the right of action to recover
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
unremitted SS premium accrues on the date it is payable and
may be brought beginning such date.
SC:
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and affirmed the
decision of the Court of Appeals. Section 22 (b), par. 2, of
Republic Act No. 1161, or the SSS Law, expressly provides that
the right to institute the necessary action against the employer
may be commenced within twenty 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. The
provision is clear that the period of prescription commences to
run only upon the discovery of the violation, which took place
in 1985. When the complaint was filed on August 14, 1985, less
than one year had passed since private respondent discovered
the delinquency. Therefore, the claim was timely instituted.
Penal Clause
Who are liable and what are the penalties.
Who can file?
(i) Criminal action arising from a violation of the provisions of this Act
may be commenced by the SSS or the employee concerned either under
this Act or in appropriate cases under the Revised Penal Code: Provided,
That such criminal action may be filed by the SSS in the city or
municipality where the SSS office is located, if the violation was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction or in Metro Manila, at the
option of the SSS.
Garcia v. 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:
o (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.
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.
Tan v. 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
13
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
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.
RA 8291 GSIS
Introduction
1987 Constitution has given constitutional recognition to the
obligation of the state to retirees by providing that the state
shall from time to time review to upgrade the pensions and
other benefits due to retirees of both government and private
sector (Art. XVI, Sec. 8)
Another feature of 1987 Constitution is to the effect that
pensions or gratuities are not considered as additional, double
or indirect compensation (Art. IX, B, The Civil Service
Commission, Sec. 8, par. 2).
GSIS is a social insurance institution. GSIS like SSS can sue and
be sued.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
j. General Insurance fund (GSIS handles the
insurance of the Government properties)
Governing and Policy Making of GSIS
It lies in the hand of the Board of Trustees. They also have
quasi-judicial powers. Just like SSC, GSIS also has the Board of trustees.
JURISDICTION
(from Revised Rules and Implementation by GSIS 2010)
Prescriptive period
General prescriptive period of 4 years from the date of
contingency.
COMPOSTION OF GSIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES (BOT)
SALIENT FEATURES OF REVISED RULES AND IMPLEMENTATION
There is no procedure to appeal and the motion for reconsideration.
1. Definition of terms
2. Membership who are compulsory covered and who are not
3. Rule 3 -the share of the employee and the employer, the
penalty if there is delay.
4. List of benefits, qualifications
5. Adjudication of claims
6. Funds
7. Administration
8. Penalty Clause
9. General Provisions

There are 2 programs in GSIS: (1) social insurance and (2) Who are covered?
Employee Compensation
The original charter of GSIS is Commonwealth Act Compulsory for all employees:
No. 186. It is this law which was amended by PD 1146 and Appointive or elective
amended later by RA 8291. Whether temporary, casual, permanent or
As a consequence, a retiree who is reappointed to a contractual w/ e-e relationship
government position shall receive the compensation for the (so those under job orders are not covered)
position without violating the constitutional prohibition Who are receiving basic pay or salary but not per
imposed on elective or appointive public officers or employees diems, honoraria or allowances; and
against receiving additional, double or indirect compensation Who have not reached the compulsory retirement
(id., par. 1). age of 65 yrs.

Objectives and scope: When coverage takes effect

Revised the 20-year old charter of GSIS (PD 1146) Upon the employees assumption to duty pursuant to a valid
Aims to expand and increase the coverage and benefits of GSIS; appointment or election and oath of office.
Introduce institutional reforms for GSIS to have more flexibility
and thus perform its mission of providing social security In job orders, there is no e-e relationship.
protection more effectively.
Are elective officials still covered after their term of office expires?
Effectivity Compulsory coverage shall cease upon expiration of term.
June 24, 1997, 15 days after it was published on June 9, 1997. It They have the option to continue with life insurance so long as
was approved on May 30, 1997 they will pay both the employee and employer shares.
On social security coverage, said official shall continue to be a
Repeal of retirement laws member and shall be entitled to benefits that provide for
PD 1146 contingencies (death, disability or separation) subject to
RA 660 satisfaction of eligibility conditions.
RA 1616
Who are not covered?
Purpose:
1. Security Employees who have separate retirement schemes under
2. Protection special laws and are therefore covered by their respective
3. It covers: retirement laws, such as the members of the Judiciary,
a. Compulsory life insurance Constitutional Commissions, and other similarly situated
b. Optional life insurance government officials;
c. Retirement benefits
d. Disability benefits Judges and Justices are only covered for purposes of
e. Working accidents life insurance but beyond that they are not covered.
f. Death benefits Uniformed members of AFP & PNP including BJMP;
Usually when you work for 15 years in the government, you Those who are not receiving basic pay or salary (for example
have a package when you reach the retirement age you can receive Barangay Officials)
pension from GSIS. Contractuals who have no employer and employee relationship
with the agencies they serve
g. Separation benefit Services as a consultant (compensation is in the form of
h. Employment benefit honoraria, their payment is not fixed)
i. Contingencies and contributions
When does a contractual have e-e relationship with his employer?
14
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Person was selected and engaged by the employer
Employer pays the salary
Employer has the power of dismissal
Employer has the power to control the means and the result
of the work to be done
Compensation
Is the basic pay or salary received by an employee pursuant to
his election/appointment.
Does not include per diems, bonuses, overtime pay, honoraria,
allowances and any other emoluments received in addition to
basic pay (RA 8291, Sec. 1)
Contributions
Member Employer
First P10,000 9% 12%
In excess of P10,000 2% 12%
Who is responsible for remittance of contributions?
employer
Date of remittance
First ten days of calendar month following the month to which
contributions apply.
Effect of non-remittance
All loan privileges of member shall be suspended
Determination of eligibility to and computation of
benefits will be made subject to deduction of
contribution arrearages and service loans accounts
plus surcharges from proceeds of claim
Penalties on delayed remittances
Aside from penal provisions, interest of not less than 2% per
month.
Penal Provisions
Official or employee who fails to include in annual budget the
amount corresponding to e-e contributions or who fails by
more than 30 days to remit the amount from the time such
amount becomes due
Employee, who after deducting, fails to remit to GSIS within 30
days from date they should be remitted
Heads of offices of national government, etc. who shall fail,
refuse or delay the payment, turn-over, remittance or delivery
of such amounts to GSIS
Penalties are probationable
Membership in GSIS
Enjoyment of life insurance, retirement and other social
security protection such as disability, survivorship, separation
and unemployment benefits
Members of judiciary and constitutional commissions are
covered by GSIS with life insurance only; retirement laws are
governed by special laws
Is part time service included in the computation of total service
rendered?
As a rule, all full-time service with compensation from date
of original appointment or election shall be computed for
purpose of determining retirement benefits.
service shall mean full-time service w/ compensation.
Part time service w/ compensation shall be converted to
full time equivalent.
Part-time shall be converted using a 40-hour per week and
52-week per year as basis.
Valdez v. GSIS
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
Petitioner would want SC to reverse CA ruling rejecting his assertion that
his services rendered in the MECO, MMSU, PHIVIDEC and as OIC Vice-
Governor of Ilocos Norte should be credited in the computation of his
retirement benefits.
SC:
Aside from having been rendered part-time in said agencies, the said
positions were without compensation as defined in Section 2 (i) of R.A.
No. 8291.
BENEFITS
Contingencies compensable
Retirement
Separation
Unemployment
Disability
Survivorship
Death (Life Insurance and Funeral)
There is no life insurance in SSS but there is life insurance in GSIS.
There is a new law for the National Prosecution Service so Fiscals now are
covered by Separate Retirement law so they are not covered by GSIS but
they are covered in so far as for life insurance.
Separation benefit and Unemployment not in the SSS. There is no
maternity benefit in GSIS.
New benefits
Unemployment benefit
Separation benefit
Improvement of existing benefits
Increase in Average Monthly Compensation (AMC) Limit: from
AMC limit of P3,000 to P10,000
Increase in the Revalued Average Monthly Compensation
(RAMC): from P140 to P700
Full enjoyment of 5-year lump sum benefit (no more
discounted per PD 1146 where retiree receives only 52.17
months while it is full 60 months at present)
Liberalization of eligibility requirements (liberal construction
in favor of the retiree)
Allocation of at least 40% of the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) to
member Loans
RETIREMENT
Conditions:
rendered at least 15 yrs. of service
at least 60 years old at time of retirement
not receiving monthly pension from permanent total disability
Although later on there will be other conditions for the qualification
of retirement .
Options: (Before in RA 1616 and RA 660, there was no option)
1. lump sum payment of basic monthly pension multiplied by 60
plus basic monthly pension for life upon expiration of 5 year
period
2. Cash payment of 18 times the basic monthly pension plus
basic monthly pension for life payable immediately upon
retirement but without 5-year guaranteed period.
If rendered at least 15 years service but is less than 60 years at time
of separation or resignation, member will be entitled to cash payment
equivalent to 18 times his basic monthly pension payable at the time of
separation or resignation and upon reaching the age of 60 years, he will
be entitled to basic monthly pension payable monthly for life.
This is denominated as separation benefit but in reality a combination of
separation and retirement benefits.
You will note here that there is resignation or separation, you
have to qualify what is the reason or cause of the resignation or
separation. In Ombudsman, there are 2 types of cases. If the case is when
15
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
you were found guilty of grave misconduct that causes dismissal and it
has an effect on his benefits.
Entitlement to retirement is premised on service of at least 15
years.
Member who is 60 years old upon retirement but with less
than 15 years of service is not entitled to retirement. What he
gets is a separation benefit consisting of cash benefit
equivalent to 100% of his average monthly compensation for
each year of service he paid contributions but not less than
P12,000 provided he has at least 3 years but less than 15
years of service.
Member who has at least 15 years of service may retire at 60
or may continue in the service until 65 (compulsory retirement
age)
If he has less than 15 years, he may be allowed to continue in
the service in accordance with existing civil service rules and
regulations. Extension of service is no longer mandatory in
contrast to PD 1146.
Notice by employer
It shall be the duty of the Employer to notify its Employee at least Ninety
(90) days in advance of the date of his/her compulsory retirement.
GSIS vs. COA
Issue:
Whether the COA disallowances, representing loyalty and
service cash awards of the respondents as well as housing allowances in
excess of that approved by the COA, could be legally deducted from their
retirement benefits.
Sec. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien.-
Xxx xxx xxx
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 disallowances and from all financial obligations of the
members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or
causes 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.
SC:
It is clear from the provision that COA disallowances cannot be
deducted from the benefits under RA 8291, as the same are explicitly
made exempt by law from such deductions. Retirement benefits cannot
be diminished by COA disallowances in view of the clear mandate of the
foregoing provision. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that if a
statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without interpretation. This is what is known as
plain-meaning rule or verbal egis.
GSIS interpretation of Section 39 that COA disallowances have
become monetary liabilities of respondents to the GSIS and therefore fall
under the exception stated in the law is wrong. No interpretation of the
said provision is necessary given the clear language of the statute. A
meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very
language of the statute cannot be placed therein by construction.
Thus, monetary liability in favor of GSIS refers to
indebtedness of the member to the System other than those which fall
under the categories of pecuniary accountabilities exempted under
the law. Such liability may include unpaid social insurance premiums
and balances on loans obtained by the retiree from the System, which
do not arise in the performance of his duties and are not incurred relative
to his work. The general policy, as reflected in our retirement laws and
jurisprudence, is to exempt benefits from all legal processes or liens, but
not from outstanding obligations of the members to the System. This is to
ensure maintenance of the GSIS fund reserves in order to guarantee
fulfillment of all its obligations under RA 8291.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
On August 1986, petitioner Jose S. Santos retires form DAR
pursuant to RA 1616 after rendering almost 21 years of service
On Jan. 1989, petitioner was re-employed in the Office of
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
In 1997, petitioner initiated moves to avail of early retirement
under RA 660. He requested and received from GSIS Operating
unit a tentative computation of retirement benefits under RA
660 amounting to P667, 937.40. Petitioner formally applied for
retirement under RA 660 in Jan. 1998.
However, in a Letter, GSIS Operating Unit informed petitioner
that he could no longer retire under RA 660 but he could do so
under RA 8291, under which petitioner is entitled to a reduce
benefit of P81,557.20. This computation did not consider
petitioners 20.91553 years of service with the DAR prior to his
previous retirement.
Petitioner appealed to respondent GSIS Committee on Claims.
Unfortunately, respondent affirmed the GSIS Operating Units
computation under RA 8291.
Issue:
Whether petitioners service with DAR can be considered in
computing his retirement.
SC:
When petitioner formally applied for retirement in 1998, RA
8291 which amended PD 1146 was already in force and it was
indubitably the law applicable to his second retirement. In contrast, the
examples cited by petitioner were all prior to the effectivity of RA 8291.
Sec. 3, RA 8291. Repealing Clause.- All laws and any other parts
of law specifically inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly: Provided, that the rights under the existing
laws, rules and regulations vested upon or acquired by an
employee who is already in the service as of the effectivity of this
ACT shall remain in force and effect: Provided further that
subsequent to the effectivity of this Act, a new employee who
has previously retire or separated and is reemployed in the
service shall be covered by the provisions of this Ac.
In addition, Sec. 10 (b) of PD 1146, as amended by RA 8291,
states:
Sec 7 (b), PD 1146- All services credited for retirement,
resignation, or separation for which corresponding benefits have
been awarded under this Act of other laws shall be excluded in
computation of service in case of reinstatement in the service of
an employer and subsequent retirement or separation which is
compensable under this Act.
As a re-employed member of the government service who is
retiring during the effectivity of RA 8291, petitioner cannot have his
previous government service with DAR credited in the computation of his
retirement benefit. Neither can he choose a mode of retirement except
that provided under RA 8291.
GSIS vs. De Leon
Respondent retired as Chief State Prosecutor of DOJ in 1992,
after 44 years of service to the government. He applied for
retirement under RA 910. Invoking RA No. 3782, as amend by
Ra 4140 which provides that chief prosecutors hold the same
rank as judges. The application was approved by GSIS.
Thereafter, ad for more than 9 years, respondent continuously
received his retirement benefits, until 2001, when he failed to
received his monthly pension.
Respondent learned the GSIS cancelled the payment of his
pension because DBM informed GSIS that respondent was not
qualified to retire under RA 910; that the law was meant to
apply only to justices and judges; and that having the same
rank and qualification as a judge did not entitle respondent to
the retirement benefits provided thereunder. Thus, GSIS
stopped the payment of respondents monthly pension.
16
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
SC:
Technicality
GSIS contended that respondent has no right to relief sought
because he presented no law which he based his claim.
SC said that the inflexible rule is that social legislation must
be liberally construed in favor of the beneficiaries.
Retirement laws, in particular, are liberally construed in favor
of the retirees sustenance and hopefully, even comfort, when
he no longer has the capability to earn a livelihood. The liberal
approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the
law in order that efficiency, security and well-being of
government employees may be enhanced. Indeed, retirement
laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of
the person intended to be benefited and all doubts are
resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their
humanitarian purpose.
Substance
It must also be underscored that GSIS itself allowed respondent
to retire under RA 910, following jurisprudence laid down by
SC.
One could hardly fault respondent, through a seasoned lawyer,
for relying on petitioners interpretation of the pertinent
retirement laws, considering that the latter is tasked to
administer the governments retirement system. He had the
right to assume that GSIS personnel knew what they were
doing.
Since the change in circumstances was through no fault of
respondent, he cannot be prejudiced by the same. His right to
receive monthly pension form the government cannot be
jeopardized by a new interpretation of the law.
GSIS argument that respondent has already been enormously
benefited under RA910 (unjust enrichment) misses the point.
Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employees
loyalty and service to the employer, and are intended to help
the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life,
lessening the burden of having to worry about his financial
support or upkeep. A pension partakes of the nature of
retained wages of the retiree for a dual purpose; to entice
competent people to enter the government service and the
permit them to retire from the service with relative security,
not only for those who have retained their vigor, but more so
for those who have been incapacitated by illness or accident.
Surely, giving respondent what is due him under the law is not
unjust enrichment.
Separation
Separation benefit
A cash payment of 18 times the Basic Monthly Pension at time
of separation and a life pension to start at the age of 60 will be
given to those who separate from the service with at least 15
years service and are below 60 years of age.
Under PD 1146, separated member will have to wait until he is
60 years of age to receive any separation benefit.
Separation: Who are eligible?
Types:
1. rendered at least 3 years but less than 15 years
(cash payment equivalent to 100% of Average
Monthly Compensation for every year of
service payable upon reaching 60 or upon
separation whichever comes later if not
receiving monthly pension from permanent
total disability)
2. rendered at least 15 years & who is below 60 at time
of resignation/separation
(cash payment equivalent to 15 times the basic
Monthly Pension payable upon separation plus
monthly pension starting 60)
Separation
The 2010 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation is silent
on the cause for separation.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
IRR, Rule II, Sec. 2.5, 1997:
Member separated for cause (for example: dismissal)
automatically forfeited
Unless terms of resignation or separation provide otherwise
Member separated not for cause
shall continue to be member & entitled subject to qualification
& other prescription
Lledo vs. Lledo
SC dismissed for the service Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, former branch
clerk of court of the RTC of QC, Brach 94. Cesars wife,
Carmeleta, had filed and administrative case against him,
charging the latter with immorality, abandonment and conduct
unbecoming a public official.
During the investigation, it was established that Cesar had left
his family to live with another woman with whom be aldo
begot children. He faild to provide support for his family.
Dispositive portion says:
WHEREFORE, Cesar V. Lledo, barch clerk of RTC,
Barch 94, QC, is hereby DISMISSED from the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave
credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government,
including any government-owned or controlled
corporation. This case is REFERRED to the IBP
Board of Governors pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
May a government employee, dismissed from the service for
cause, be allowed to recover the personal contributions he paid to the
GSIS?
SC:
Sec. 11 (d) of CA 186, as amended, continues to govern case of
employees dismissed for cause and their claims for the return of their
personal contributions. The said law provides:
II- Retirement Insurance benefit
Xxx xxx xxx
(d) Upon dismissal for cause or on voluntary separation, he shall
be entitled only to his own premiums and voluntary deposits, if
any, plus interest of 3% per annum, compounded monthly.
GSIS laws are in the nature of social legislation, to be liberally
construed in favor of the government employees. The money subject to
the instant request consists of personal contributions made by the
employee, premiums paid in anticipation of benefits expected upon
retirement. The occurrence of contingency, i.e., his dismissal from the
service prior to reaching retirement age, should not deprive him of the
money that belongs to him from the outset. To allow forfeiture of these
personal contributions in favor of the GSIS would condone undue
enrichment.
Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, Cesar is entitled to the
return of his premiums and voluntary deposits if any, with interest
of 3% per annum, compounded monthly.
Unemployment
The benefit is paid when a permanent employee is involuntarily
separated from the service as a result of the abolition of his office or
position usually resulting from reorganization.
Who is eligible?
Permanent employee who has paid 12 monthly contributions.
Duration of benefit depends on length of service; ranges from
2 mos. to a maximum of 6 mos.
Equivalent of benefit 50% of the average monthly
compensation
17
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Options Those who have more than 15 years service may
either avail of retirement or separation benefits as the case
may be.
Disability
Any loss or impairment of the normal functions of the physical or mental
faculties of a member, which reduces or eliminates his capacity to
continue with his current gainful occupation or engage in any other
gainful occupation (IRR, Sec. 1.18)
Evaluation of disability as a contingency is vested solely in GSIS
( IRR, Sec. 9.3.1)
General condition for entitlement is that the disability was
not due to misconduct, notorious negligence, habitual
intoxication or willful intention to kill himself or another (IRR,
Sec. 9.3.2)
Permanent Total Disability
A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled
when he/she is in the service and has paid at least 180 monthly
contributions (monthly income benefit for life equivalent to
basic monthly pension plus cash payment equivalent to 18
times his basic monthly pension effective on date of disability)
A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled are
eligible when (a) he is in the service at time of disability or (b)
separated from the service and has paid at least 36 monthly
contributions within the last 5 years immediately preceding
the disability or has paid a total of at least 180 monthly
contributions (monthly income benefit for life equivalent to the
basic monthly pension)
A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled
when he is separated from service with at least 3 years of
service but has not paid 36 monthly contributions within the
last 5 years is still eligible (cash payment equivalent to 100%
of the AMC) for every year of service but not less than P12,000)
Disabilities considered permanent total
Complete loss of sight in both eyes
Loss of two limbs at or above ankle or wrist
Permanent complete paralysis of 2 limbs
Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity
Other cases as may be determined by GSIS
Permanent Partial Disability
A member who becomes permanently and partially disabled
when
- when he is in the service at time of disability; or
- separated from service and has paid 36 monthly
contributions within the last 5 years immediately
preceding the disability or has paid a total of at least
180 monthly contributions.
Permanent Partial
Any finger
Any toe
One arm
One hand
One foot or leg
One or both ears
Hearing of one or both ears
Sight of one eye
Other cases as may be determined
Temporary Total Disability
Accrues or arises when there is complete but temporary incapacity to
continue with a member's present employment or engage in any gainful
occupation due to the loss or impairment of the normal function of the
physical and/or mental faculties of the member. In effect, this loss or
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
impairment can be reversed to the point where the member can continue
with his previous employment or engage in another gainful occupation
Gainful employment
Any productive activity that provides the member with income at least
equal to the minimum compensation of government employees (IRR, Sec.
1.17)
Temporary Total Disability
A member who suffers temporary total disability for reasons
not due to grave misconduct, notorious negligence, habitual
intoxication or willful intention to kill himself or another may
be entitled if:
- he is in service at time of disability and has
exhausted sick leave credits; or
- if separated, has rendered at least 3 years of
service and has paid at least 6 monthly contributions
in the twelve month period immediately preceding
his disability.
Disability
A written notice of sickness or injury shall be given by a
member or anybody in his/her behalf within five (5) working
days from the date of the occurrence of the contingency.
An application for disability benefits must be filed with the
GSIS within Four (4) years from the date of the occurrence of
the contingency, fully supported by required papers and
documents.
Disability - forfeiture of disability benefits if member refuses or
deliberately fails to:
(a) have himself/herself medically treated by a physician when
required by the GSIS; or
(b) take the prescribed medication; or
(c) have himself/herself confined in a hospital without justifiable
reason, when such confinement is required by the GSIS; or
(d) avail himself/herself of such rehabilitation facilities as may be
duly recommended by the GSIS and made available for
him/her; or
(e) observe such precautionary and/or preventive measures as
prescribed by a physician or expressly required of him/her to
prevent the aggravation or continuance of his/her disability.
(f) report on his/her re-employment.
Survivorship
Those granted to surviving and qualified beneficiaries of the deceased
member or pensioner to cushion them against the adverse economic,
psychological and emotional loss resulting from the death of a wage
earner or pensioner.
Who are eligible?
If at time of death, a member was in the service and has
rendered at least 3 years of service (primary beneficiaries to
receive survivorship pension plus cash payment; secondary
beneficiaries or legal heirs entitled to cash payment)
If at time of death, a member was in the service with less than 3
years service or was separated from the service with at least 3
years of service and has paid 36 monthly contributions within
the 5-year period immediately preceding his death or has paid
a total of at least 180 monthly contributions prior to death
(primary beneficiaries to receive survivorship pension plus
cash payment; secondary beneficiaries or legal heirs entitled to
cash payment)
Primary Beneficiaries
The legitimate spouse, until he/she remarries, and the
dependent children.
18
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
In the IRR, it includes Cohabitation or common law
relationship. While SSS is silent on this matter.
Secondary Beneficiaries
the dependent parents; and
the legitimate descendants
Who are dependents?
(a) the legitimate spouse dependent for support;
(b) any legitimate, legitimated and/or legally adopted child,
including any illegitimate child, who is unmarried, not
gainfully employed, who has not attained the age of majority,
or being at the age of majority but incapacitated and incapable
of self-support due to a mental or physical defect acquired
prior to age of majority; and
(c) the parents dependent upon the member for support.
A.M. NO. 100919-Ret. Feb. 22, 2001 (RE: APPLICATION FOR
SURVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS. MAYLENE G. MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF
THE LATE ERNESTE R. MANLAVI).
While Marilou G. Manlavis marriage to the late Ernesto R.
Manlavi had never been dissolved prior to his death, she abandoned the
family for more than 17 years until he died and lived with other
men.
It is obvious that she was not dependent on her legal husband
for any support, financial or otherwise, during that entire period. In fact
her whereabouts were unknown to her family. She never attempted to
communicate with them, even to check up on the well-bing of her only
daughter. Such being the case, Marilou G. Manlavi is not a dependent
within the contemplation of RA 8291 as to be entitled to Survivorship
Benefits.
GSIS v. Montesclaros
Facts:
SB member Nicolas Montesclaros married Milagros Orbiso. Nicolas was a
72-year old widower when he married Milagros who was then 43 years
old. Nicolas died. Milagros then filed with the GSIS a claim for
survivorship pension under PD 1146. The GSIS denied the claim because
under Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving spouse has no right to
survivorship pension if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage
with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for
the pension.
SC:
Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 1146 void for being violative of the
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the
law. The proviso is unduly oppressive in outrightly denying a dependent
spouse's claim for survivorship pension if the dependent spouse
contracted marriage to the pensioner within the three-year prohibited
period. There is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse
without giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to be heard. The
proviso also violated the equal protection clause because it
discriminates the dependent spouse who contracts marriage to the
pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the
pension.
BOT Policy under GMA
in the revised IRR of the GSIS Charter (RA 8291), surviving
spouses were disqualified from getting the usual half of the
GSIS pensioner monthly benefit if the spouse earns more than
the minimum wage rate of national government employee or is
getting pension form other institutions, no matter what
amount.
BOT Policy under PNoy
Board resolved to allow surviving spouses of members and
pensioners to receive their monthly pension benefits even if
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
they are gainfully employed and receiving other sources of
income.
Board recognized that gainful employment does not imply that
a surviving spouse is no longer dependent for support upon the
deceased member or pensioner.
Family Code clearly defines that Support comprises
everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,
medical attendance, education and transportation in keeping
with the financial capacity of the family.
Funeral
Shall be paid upon the death of:
(a) an active member; or
(b) a member who has been separated from the service, but
who is entitled to future separation or retirement benefit;
or
(c) a member who is a pensioner (excluding survivorship
pensioners); or
(d) a retiree who at the time of his/her retirement is at least 60
years old but opts to retire under RA 1616; or
(e) a member who retired under RA 1616 prior to the
effectivity of RA 8282 with at least 20 years service
regardless of age.
Amount is initially P12,000 but shall be increased to at least
P18,000 after five years.
The funeral benefit shall be paid to one of the following in the
order in which they appear herein below:
(a) the surviving spouse;
(b) the legitimate child who spent for the funeral services; or
(c) any other person who can show incontrovertible proofs of
having borne the funeral expenses.
ATTY:
We actually have an order to whom the benefit shall be paid.
Compulsory Life Insurance
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.
ATTY:
Anyway if we remember again those who are compulsory
covered and not. You have Judges.
How about Labor Arbiter?
They are covered by different retirement laws. Labor Abrbiters
have the same rank as judges but they cannot retire under RA 910.
Kadtong kaso na Chief State Prosecutor. Ang case ni De Leon. So we have
a separate retirement law for labor arbiters
Aside from the that, prosecutors have also different retirement
law. Of course, the package is very big.
Life Insurance Benefits
Maturity Benefit. Upon maturity of the life insurance, the face amount
less any indebtedness against the policy, shall be paid to the member;
ATTY:
Upon the maturity we have the face value.
Death Benefit. When a member dies prior to the maturity of his/her
insurance and during its continuance, the GSIS shall pay to the designated
19
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Beneficiaries or to his/her legal heirs, as the case may be, the face amount
less any indebtedness thereon.
Death benefit is separate from Survivorship benefit. Ayaw mo
kalibog under SSS, there is what we called Death Benefit but that is the
same as survivorship benefit. In GSIS, there is death benefit, but it is not
related to life insurance anf funeral. For example, if you have a member of
dies prior to maturity, GSIS will pay the face amount of insurance less any
indebtedness. This death benefit is to be taken from the life insurance
fund. And survivorship pension will be take from the Social Security Fund.
Employee 9%, 2% of it goes to life and 7% goes to social
security.
Employer 12% 2% goes to life and 10% goes to social
security.
As you can see, the total percentage of the social security of
GSIS is 17%. Mas Dako sa SSS which:
Employee 3%
Employer 7%
10% only plus walay life insurance sa SSS.
How many contributions in retirement benefit to be able to retire?
SSS 120 monthly contributions; 60 ang age; 65 ang compulsory; ang sa
underground 55 years old but the same monthly contributions
GSIS 180 monthly contributions. 15 years. At least 15 years of
contribution and at least 60 years old.
Accidental Death Benefit When the death of the member is accidental
in accordance with Section 10.9.2 of IRR, the GSIS shall pay the
designated beneficiaries or the legal heirs, as the case may be, an
additional amount equivalent to the face amount of his/her compulsory
insurance;
Waiver of Premiums. When a member is separated due to total and
permanent disability, the contributions that may become due and payable
during the period of disability shall be deemed waived and considered
paid.
ATTY:
If the member suffers permanent total disability, it is only
under total permanent disability that there is waiver of premium.
Cash Surrender Value (CSV). After his/her insurance shall have been
in force for one (1) year, a member separated from the service prior to
the maturity of the insurance may be paid the cash value less any
indebtedness thereon unless the terms of his/her separation provide
otherwise;
Insurance Loans. Upon application, a member who has been insured
for at least one (1) year may be granted an insurance loan in an amount
not exceeding Fifty Percent (50%) of the cash value of his/her insurance
at the time of application.
Dividends. An annual dividend may be granted to all members of the
GSIS whose life insurance is in force for at least one (1) year, based on
records submitted by the employer. A Dividend Allocation Formula shall
be determined and circularized by the GSIS for this purpose.
ATTY:
I am not sure if there are dividends given because of the may.
Adjudication of Claims
GSIS has original & exclusive jurisdiction to settle
any dispute arising under RA 8291 w/ respect to:
- coverage
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
- entitlement to benefits
- collection & payment of contributions
- any other matter related to any or all of the
foregoing which is necessary for their determination
Which body of GSIS vested with Quasi-Judicial
Functions? Board of Trustees
Prescriptive Period?
- 4 years from date of contingency except life &
retirement benefits which do not prescribe.
Tax Exemption
Basis: Section 39 RA 8291
1. Funds
2. Properties
3. Money
These are exempt from taxes, execution, attachment and levy.
RUBIA V. GSIS
There was overpayment of the member and he wants to
recover. Argument of GSIS is that it is exempt from execution.
SC:
The exemption was not applied. Because it was not the fund of
GSIS. It was a money of the member.
That is not covered. The refund of amortization payment is not
covered. Exemption of GSIS from execution does not cover refund of
amortization payment
CITY OF DAVAO V. RTC
On real property taxes, GSIS tax-exempt status in previous law
was withdrawn under RA 7160 but restored under Sec. 39 RA 8291.
SC:
Supreme Court emphasize that GSIS enjoys full tax
exemptions
Legal Fees
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February 11, 2010
Facts:
GSIS seeks exemption from the payment of legal fees imposed on
government-owned or controlled corporations under Section 22, Rule
141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court. GSIS anchors its petition on Section
39 of its charter, RA 8291.
Issue:
May the legislature exempt GSIS from legal fees imposed by the
Court on government-owned and controlled corporations and local
government units?
SC:
Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules
promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it
cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. As one of
the safeguards of this Court's institutional independence, the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Court's
exclusive domain. That power is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress, much less with the Executive.
Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the GSIS
from the payment of legal fees without transgressing another equally
important institutional safeguard of the Court's independence fiscal
autonomy. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by
20
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Congress to government-owned or controlled corporations and local
government units will necessarily reduce the JDF and the SAJF.
Undoubtedly, such situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the
Court's guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence.
ATTY:
Separation of Powers. Legal Fees are mandated by the
Judiciary.
GSIS vs. Heirs of Caballero
Facts:
Caballero when he was still alive, he has a loan with GSIS. It
was covered by mortgage. It default and the property was foreclosed.
Caballero and the heirs were occupying the property. It was sold in an
auction. The heirs of Caballero bidded the auction. But a corporation won
the auction because it has a higher bid. So the heirs filed a case against
GSIS to nullify the sale on alleged defects of the sale.
Because the heirs were occupying the property and yet it was
owned by GSIS, so GSIS wants recover the rentals during the time when
the heirs where occupying the property. So when GSIS filed its Answer,
aside from filing compulsory counterclaims, GSIS also filed permissive
counterclaims but GSIS contended that they should not pay the docket
fees on permissive counterclaim pursuant to Section 39 of RA 8291.
ATTY:
You have to pay docket fees to acquire jurisdiction.
SC:
This section cannot operate to exempt it from payment of legal
fees which includes docket fees on permissive counterclaims.
GSIS vs NLRC
Facts:
Security Guards of a security agency assigned to GSIS Tacloban
Branch. There a labor case money claims. There was a judgment against
the agency of the security guards and GSIS. GSIS does not want to pay the
money claims contending Section 39 of RA 8291 exempting GSIS Funds
from execution.
SC:
The fact there was not actual direct e-e relationship does not
absolve GSIS from the liability. GSIS became the indirect employer of the
security guards pursuant to labor law. So jointly and severally liable.
On the matter of exemption, charter should not be used to
evade its liabilities to its employees, even to its indirect employees, as
mandated by the Labor Code.
Disciplining authority
Garcia vs. Molina
Facts:
Respondents Molina and Velasco, both Attorney V of the GSIS,
received two separate Memoranda from petitioner charging them with
grave misconduct. Specifically, Molina was charged for allegedly
committing the following acts: 1) directly and continuous helping some
alleged disgruntled employees to conduct concerted protest actions and/
or illegal assemblies against the management and the GSIS President and
General Manager; 2) leading the concerted protest activities held in the
morning of May 22, 2002 during office hours within the GSIS compound;
and 3) continuously perfomring said activities despite warning from his
immediate superiors.
CA restrained the investigation against respondents.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
SC:
While the CSC Rules does not specifically provide that a formal
charge without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void,
under the same CSC rules, upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient
in form and substance, the disciplining authority shall require the person
complained of to submit a counter-affidavit/comment under oath within
three days from receipt. The use of the word shall quite obviously
indicated that it is mandatory for the disciplining authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation or at least respondent should be given the
opportunity to comment and explain his side.. This was not done.
To sondone this would give the disciplining authority an
unrestricted power to judge by himsle the nature of the act complained of
as well as the gravity of the charges. We, therefore, conclude that
respondents were denied due process of law.
What is the effect of re-employment?
A member who is re-employed is considered a new entrant if
he was paid separation or retirement benefits corresponding
to his previous services.
Portability Law (RA 7699)
(Portability law 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.
ATTY:
Portability of benefits, protability law, limited portability
scheme ug totalization of benefits.
Under the law, it talks about two systems, GSIS and SSS. You
can be a member of GSIS or SSS who does not qualify by reason of non-
fulfilment of the required period of service, they may able to qualify by
making use of the period during which he rendered service to an
employer and when he was a member of SSS. It can also apply vice versa.
Gamogamo vs. PNOC
Facts:
Petitioner worked with DOH and served for 14 years of service.
After that, he worked in PNOC and then after working for several years,
PNOC was privatized. According to petitioner, there is a mandate under
RA 7699, that his period of years in DOH shall be tacked in or shall be
added with the number of years with PNOC.
SC:
The totalization of service credits was resorted to only when
the retiree did not qualify for benefits in either or both the Social Security
System of GSIS. In this case, petitioners 14 years of service with the DOH
may not remain uncompensated because it may be recognized by the GSIS
pursuant to Section 12 of the Government Service Insurance Act of 1977,
as may be determined by the GSIS. Since petitioner may be entitled to
some benefits from the GSIS, he cannot avail of the benefits under RA
7699.
ATTY:
No mandate because you are only allowed of you are not
entitled to receive benefits under one system. But according to the SC, it
mentioned Section 12 on Separation Benefit. At least 3 years, less than 50.
At least 15, Less than 60 yo. There are two choices. If you have 14 years of
21
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
service, it may be recognized by GSIS saying that you will be entitled with
the separation benefit. And since you are entitled with separation benefit,
RA7699 will not apply.
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]).
ATTY:
There is no actual transfer. They only get certification and
present it. So there is no actual transfer.
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)
ATTY:
It means that if you are already eligible in that particular
system, that will not apply.
Overlapping period refers to the period during which a worker
contributes simultaneously to GSIS and SSS.
ATTY:
Basin there was a time na nagwork ka sa government and naa
kay contribution sa SSS. But the law says that only once ra muapply ang
overlapping.
The totalization of service credits is only restored to when the
retiree does not qualify for benefits in either or both of the systems.
If a person is qualified to receive benefits granted by GSIS if
such right has not yet been exercised, then this principle does not apply.
Can justices and judges avail of the portability scheme?
NO. They have different retirement. Their coverage in GSIS is
only LIFE INSURANCE.
In GSIS Law, there is no Maternity leave? In SSS, there is maternity leave.
A program provided for in Article 172-215 of the Labor Code where a
fund (State Insurance Fund is established through premium payments
exacted from employers and from which employees and their depedents
in the event of work-connected disability or death, may promptly secure
adequate income benefit, and medical or related benefits.
ABOUT WORKMANS COMPENSATION
- The first law: Act 3428, otherwise known as the Workmans
Compensation Act (took effect on June 10, 1928
- The Act works upon the presumption of compensability
(means that if the injury or disease arose out of and in the
course of employment, it is presumed that the claim for
compensation falls within the provisions of the law). Meaning,
the employee need not present any proof of causation. It is the
employer who should prove that the illness or injury did not
arise out of or in the course of the employment.
Presumption of compensability was abandoned by present Labor Code,
substituted by system based on social security
PURPOSE
Purpose of the new system is to restore a sensible equilibrium between
employers obligation to pay workmens compensation and the
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
employees right to receive reparation for work-connected death or
disability
- PD 626 further amended Title II of Book IV on the ECC and
State Insurance Fund of the Labor Code of the Philippines
- The law abandoned the presumption of compensability and the
theory of aggravation under the Workmens Compensation Act
(if the sickness or ailment is aggravated by the employees
work, employer is liable for the consequent compensation
thereof)
Reason for abandonment?
System based on social security system purpose of this innovation was
to restore a sensible equilibrium between the employers obligation to
pay workmens compensation and the employees right to receive
reparation for work-connected death or disability.
PRESENT RULES:
- For the sickness and resulting disability or death to be
compensable, the claimant must prove that:
a. the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease
listed under Annex A of the Rules on Employees
Compensation, or
b. the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the
claimants working conditions.
- If the claimants illness or disease is not included on the said
Annex A, then he is entitled to compensation only if he can
prove that the risk of contracting the illness or disease was
increased by his working conditions
Article 203 LC: No agent, attorney or other person pursuing or in charge
of the preparation or filing of any claim for benefit 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 or deduction of any amount
from any benefit granted under this Title for the payment of fees for such
services is prohibited. Violation of a provision of this Article shall be
punished by a fine of not less than five hundred pesos not more than five
thousand pesos, or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than
one year or both, at the discretion of the court.
Same prohibition on the SSS but allows not more than 10%of
benefits awarded for a lawyer who appears as a counsel in a case heard
by SSC.
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION
- Created on November 1, 1974 Nx operational with PD 626.
- Article 176 LC: purpose (initiate, rationalize and coordinated
policies of ECP)
- Formulate policies and guidelines of ECP
- Review and decide on appeal all employees compensation
claims disapproved by the Systems
- To initiate policies and programs toward adequate
occupational health and safety and accident prevention in
working environment.
Composition: 7 members
(5 are ex-officio: Chair Secretary of Labor and Employment
and members GSIS general manager, SSS Administrator,
Chair of PhilHealth and Executive Director of ECC Sec; 2
appointive members representing employees and
employers.)
PD 626 issued December 27, 1974; extensively amending provisions of
Title II, Book IV of Labor Code on EC and SIF, took effect on Jan 1, 1975;
present provision of LC reflect the amendment by PD 626.
22
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
PD Nos. 850, 891, 1368, 1641, 1692 and 1921 and EO 179 further
amendments.
LIBERALITY OF INTERPRETATION
- Notwithstanding the abandonment of the presumption of
compensability established by the old law, the present law has
not ceased to be an employees compensation law or a social
legislation
- Liberality of the law in favour of the working man and woman
still prevails, and the official agency charged by law to
implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should
adopt a liberal attitude in favour of the employees in deciding
claims for compensability, especially in the light of the
compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987
Constitution vivifies and enhances.
- A humanitarian impulse, dictated by no less than the
Constitution itself under the social justice policy, call for a
liberal and sympathetic approach to legitimate appeals of
disable public servants.
POLICY
- The policy is to extend the applicability of the law in
employees compensation to as many employees who can avail
of the benefits thereunder
- Claims falling under the Employees Compensation Act should
be liberally resolved to fulfil its essence as a social legislation
designed to afford relief to the working man and woman in out
society
- Only this kind of interpretation that can give meaning and
substance to the compassionate spirit of the law as embodied
in Article 4 of the New Labor Code, which states that all doubts
in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions in
the Labor Code including its implementing rules and
regulations should be resolve in favour of the laborers.
BASIC POSTULATES
1. Abandonment of the presumption of compensability and the
theory of aggravation under the Workmens Compensation Act
2. For the sickness and resulting disability or death to be
compensable, and the claimant must prove either of two
things: a) that the sickness was the result of an occupational
disease listed under Annex A of the Rules on Employees
Compensation; b) if the sickness is not so listed, that the risk of
contracting the disease was increased by the claimants
working conditions.
- If the disease not intended by the law to compensated are
inadvertently or recklessly included, the integrity of the State
Insurance Fund is endangered
o Reason:
Compassion for the victims of diseases
not covered by the law ignores the need
to show a greater concern for the trust
fund to which the tens of millions of
workers and their families look to for
compensation whenever covered
accidents, diseases and deaths occur.
This stems from the development in the
law that no longer is the poor employee
still arrayed against the might and power
of his rich corporate employer, hence the
necessity of affording all kinds of
favourable presumptions to the
employee. This reasoning is no longer
good policy.
It is now the trust fund and not and not
the employer which suffers if benefits are
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
paid to claimants who are not entitled
under the law. The employer joins the
employee in trying to have the claims
approved. The employer is spared the
problem of proving a negative proposition
that the disease was not caused by
employment.
OTHER POSTULATES
- Existence of Employer-Employee relationship is essential in
the grant of compensation:
o Article 172: Policy The State shall promote and
develop a tax-exempt employees compensation
program whereby employees and their dependents,
in the event of work-connected disability or death,
may promptly secure adequate income benefit and
medical related benefits.
o Article 173:
(f) Employer means any person, natural or
juridical, employing the services of the employee
(g) Employee means any person compulsorily
covered by the GSIS under CA 186, as amended,
including the members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and any person compulsorily covered
by the SSS under RA 1161, as amended.
(k) Injury means any harmful change in the
human organism from any accident arising out of
and in the course of the employment.
(l) Sickness means any illness definitely accepted
as an occupational disease listed by the Commission,
or any illness caused by employment, subject to
proof that the risk of contracting the same is
increased by the working conditions. For this
purpose, the Commission is empowered to
determines and approve occupational diseases and
work-related illnesses that may be considered
compensable based on peculiar hazards of
employment.
(m) Death - means loss of life resulting from injury
or sickness|||
(n) Disability - means loss or impairment of a
physical or mental function resulting from injury or
sickness.
o Article 174: Compulsory Coverage. Coverage in the
State Insurance Fund shall be compulsory upon all
employers and their employees not over sixty (60)
years of age; Provided, That an employee who is over
sixty (60) years of age and paying contributions to
qualify for the retirement or life insurance benefit
administered by the System shall be subject to
compulsory coverage.||
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.
ANNEX A
Occupational Diseases
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or
death to be compensable, all of the following condition must be satisfied:
1. The employees work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the employees
exposure to the described risks;
23
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
3. The diseases was contracted within a period of exposure and
under such other factors necessary to contract it;
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the
employee.
DOCTRINE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
The disease sickness or illness, to be compensable must be the
result of an occupational disease listed under Annex A
THEORY OF INCREASED RISK
If the disease, sickness or illness is not listed in Annex A, the
claimant, for purposes of showing its compensability, should proffer
proof that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his
working conditions.
Comment:
I noticed that in the Supreme Court, If there is particular disease, the first
thing to do is to look in Annex A if it is listed in the occupational disease.
If the cause is not in Annex A but it is linked then it is compensable.
Look at Annex A, if immediate cause is not one those then proceed with
theory no. 2 Theory of Increased Risk
GSIS v. Gabriel
(Prosecutor Died of cardiac arrest, secondary to esophageal cancer)
SC:
We rule that ECC and GSIS erred in denying compensation
benefits to the surviving spouse of the deceased because even
if esophageal cancer is not compensable, there can be no
question that coronoary artery disease or atherosclerotic
disease heart disease is compensable.
What is more, the deceaseds immediate cause of death was
cardiac arrest. Medical experts agree that when the onset is
instantaneous or abrupt, the probability is that the arrest is
cardiac in origin and related to an underlying coronary artery
disease. In the case of prosecutor Gabriel, the cardiac arrest
causing the death was more likely precipitated by myocardial
infarction or hypertensive heart disease rather than by
esophageal cancer which is chronic disease. In this case, no
autopsy was done. Hence, we have to accept the fact that the
cardiac arrest was caused by primarily by myocardial
infarction rather than by esophageal cancer.
GSIS v. Cuanan
(Teacher Cardio Pulmonary Arrest with Acute Myocardial Infarction as
the antecedent cause, and Bronchial Asthma and Hypertension as
underlying causes)
SC:
In the instant case, the wife of the respondent died a year after
her retirement. Clearly, the period between her retirement and
demise was less than one year. Indeed, if a death which
occurred almost four and one half years after retirement was
held to be within the coverage of the death benefits under PD
626, as in the Manuzon case, with more reason should a death
which occurred within one year after retirement be considered
as covered under the same law. A claim for benefits for such
death cannot defeated by mere fact of separation from service.
Degree of proof required under PD 626 was satisfied, i.e., such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Probability and not ultimate
degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation
proceedings.
In the case at bar, the under substantial evidence came from
the expert opinion of Dr. Arsenio A. Esteras Jr., a Diplomate in
Internal Medicine who issued the Death Certificate
Aquino v. SSS
(Grocery Man US Navy congestive heart failure)
SC:
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
Congestive heart failure is not included. Hence, petitioner
should have shown proof that the working conditions in the
commissary where her husband worked aggravated the risk of
contracting the ailment. Petitioner should have adduced
evidenced of a reasonable connection between the work of her
deceased husband and he cause of his death, or that the
progression of the disease was brought about largely by the
conditions in her husbands job as grocery man at the
commissary store. Failing in this aspect, we are constrained to
rule that her husbands illness which eventually caused his
demise was not compensable.
In addition, granting petitioners claim will set a bad precedent
considering that 23 years elapsed from the time her husband
stopped working at the commissary store up to the time he
died. If we were to grant it, we might unduly burden the funds
of the ECC and jeopardize it with a flood of unsubstantiated
claims. Besides, the court cannot remain oblivious to the
possibility that, within that 23-year period, other factors
intervened to cause the death of petitioners husband.
Petitioner was thus under an even greater compulsion to
proffer evidence to negate this possibility and establish the
casual connection between her husbands work and his death.
The 23-year gap between his separation from employment in
1977 and his death in 2000 was a gaping hole in petitioners
claim.
Jacang v. SSS
(Janitor Takayasus disease)
SC:
Takayasus Disease is not listed as an occupational disease. But
it is scientifically linked to PTB, a listed occupational disease.
Thus, even if the Takayasus Disease is not listed, perhaps for
being rare and still mysterious, there can be no question that
being associated with PTB which is a listed occupational
disease, the depth of petitionerss husband is compensable
under Annex A of the Amended Rules on Employees
Compensation.
Any doubt on this matter has to be interpreted in favour of the
employee, considering that PD 626 is a social legislation. In this
case, enough substantial evidence has been shown to convince
us that the surviving spouse of the deceased worker is entitled
to compensation under said PDP 626, because the records
show his ailment and death have been associated with PTB, a
listed compensable disease.
Bunao v. SSS
(Marine Engineer Hepatic Encephalopathy, Renal Cell Cancer)
SC:
There is no dispute that renal cell cancer is not listed as an
occupational disease under Annex A of the Rules on
Employees Compensation. As such, petitioner has the burden
of proving by substantial evidence, the causal relationship
between her husbands illness and his working conditions.
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
For petitioners claim to prosper, she must submit such proof
as would constitute a reasonable basis for concluding either
that the conditions of Artuss empployement caused the
ailment or that such working conditions had aggravated the
risk of contracting that ailment.
Petitioner alleged that the deceased marine engineer was
exposed to leaded petrol and petroleum products that contain
various chemicals like hydrogen, benzene and lead which are
health hazards because of their carcinogenicity. She claims that
most of these chemicals precipitate disease, kidney cancer and
liver cancer.
Unfortunately, such bare allegations and vague excerpts on
cancer do not constitute such evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that there is
indeed a causal relationship between the illness of the
deceased and his working conditions. Awards of compensation
24
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
cannot rest on speculations and presumptions. The claimant
must prove a positive proposition.
There is no showing that the progression of the disease was
brought about largely by the conditions in Artuss job.
Petitioner did not present medical history, records or
physicians report in order to substantiate her claim that the
working conditions on board the vessels M/T Palawan, M/T
Guimaras and M/T Buenavista increased the risk of contracting
renal cell cancer.
Castor-Garupa v. ECC
(Government Physician End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic
Glomerulonephritis)
SC:
Inasmuch as petitioners disease was not listed as an
occupational disease, it is incumbent upon her to adduce
substantial proof that would show that the nature of her
employment or working conditions increased the risk of end
stage renal disease was caused by a streptococcal infection. She
attached the Physicians certification and the Employers
Certification which clearly established that she suffered
hypertension as early as 1994 and displayed sudden loss of
appetite, edema and general fatigue in 1998 consistent with
symptoms of chronic glomerulonephritis.
Petitioner is a practicing doctor in a public rural hospital from
January 1, 1979 until she underwent a kidney transplant on
March 11 1999. As a doctor who was in direct contract with
patients, she was more exposed to all kinds of germs and
bacteria, thus increasing the risk of contracting
glomerulonephritis. Given the nature of her work, and
considering further that the resident physician work for
extended hours, the likelihood of petitioner being infected by
the streptococcus bacterium is, without a doubt, increased. We
thus find the probability of petitioner contracting chronic
glomerulonephritis in her workstation has been substantiated.
Administration
The present system is also administered by social insurance agencies:
1. Government Service Insurance System
2. Social Security System
Under the Employees Compensation Commission.
Coverage
Compulsory (Art. 168 LC)
o All Employers
o All Employees
Not over 60 years old
Over 60 but who had been paying contributions to
the system prior to the age of 60 and has not
compulsorily retired;
Every employee coverable under SSS and GSIS and should be
compulsorily covered by both
Effectivity:
o Employer (first day of operation but not earlier than Jan. 1
1975)
o Employee (first day of employment)
Employer may belong to either
o Public sector covered by the GSIS
o Private sector covered by the SSS
Employee may belong to either:
o Public sector comprising the employed workers who are
covered by the GSIS
o Private sector comprising workers who are covered by SSS
Penalty for violation of registration
Failure or refusal to register the employees, employer or
responsible official who committed the violation shall be
punished with fine of not less than 1000 nor more than 10,000
and/or imprisonment for the duration of violation or non-
compliance or until such time that the rectification of the
violation has been made, at the discretion of the Court.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
Accident unforeseen for which the injured party is not legally
responsible
Arising out of employment upon consideration of all
circumstances, a casual connection between the conditions
under which the conditions under which the work is required
to be performed and resulting injury; refers to origin or cause
of accident v. in the course of which refers to time, place and
circumstances under which accident takes place
Injury - Any harmful change in the human organism from any
accident arising out of and in the course of employment (i.e.,
wound, laceration or bone fracture)
Requisites:
Employee must been injured at the place
where work requires him;
Employee must be performing his official
functions;
If injured elsewhere, employee must have
been executing an order for the employee
Example
Taking lunch or coffee break or resting
when having reasonable connection with
employment
Employed at public street and died while
crossing street to go to unsafe place to
relieve himself because no toilet facilities
was provided by employer
Attempting to save life of a co-worker
Death of a teacher travelling home from
school
Off-the-premises injury rule (street peril rule) injuries or those
occasioned by street perils or in going to and coming from the place of
work is that , in the absence of special circumstances, such injuries are
excluded from the benefits.
Exemptions to general rule
1. Going to and coming from workplace rule -
act of employee in going to or coming from
workplace must be continuing act (employee
has not diverted by any other activity) and he
had not departed from the usual route.
2. Direct premises rule employee is
proceeding to or from his work on the
premises of his employer (i.e., construction
foreman from barangay where he inspected
work being done, soldier must go where his
company is stationed.)
3. Ingress-egress or proximity rule where
employee is about or about to leave premises
of employer by way of exclusive or customary
means of ingress or egress.
4. Shuttle bus or extra-premises rule the
shuttle bus or similar vehicle provided by
employer to transport employees in going to
and coming from place of work is considered
an extension of work premises (applies even if
employee is using is own car or vehicle)
5. Special errand rule injury sustained on
errand beyond office hours, within or without
the premises of employer is compensable
(applies also to activities authorized by
employer such as intramurals, ball games, golf
games, field trips picnics)
Injuries sustained during vacation leave
o General Rule: relationship is not deemed suspended
during vacation leave with pay
25
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
Members of military and policemen while on leave
o When Compensable:
On rest and recreation which is part of
soldiers military activities after an actual
combat and duly certified by commanding
officer
One academic leave and approved and
paid by military
o When not compensable
While on sick leave, maternity, paternity
or graduation leave, or when on AWOL
status
The 24-Hour Duty Doctrine the concept of work place cannot
always be literally to a soldier on active status who, for all
intents and purposes, is on a 24-hour official duty status,
subject to military discipline and law and call of his superior
officers at all times, except when he is on vacation leave status;
this doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and
circumstances but only to those which, although not an official
line of duty, are nonetheless basically police service in
character.
GSIS v. Mecayer
SC:
It had been established that respondents husband, a driver at
the PNP Administration Division and Holding Center, Camp
Crame, was in the place where his work required him to be and
in the course of performing his official function when he was
shot to death on July 12, 1992
As a driver, SPO2 Mecayer may not be doing anything the
whole day while he was on duty except to wait for his
superiors instruction and yet he was still considered as
performing his official function. This is so because drivers are
required to remain on call and subject to orders by his
superiors during his duty and could not use his time effectively
and gainfully for his own purposes. Thus, even if SPO2 Mecayer
was just waiting around and in the process of consuming a
bottle of beer wold not preclude the work-connected character
of his death because he was still performing his official
function at the time of his death. In fact, a certification dated
March 7, 2001 issued by the PNP showed that SPO2 Mecayers
death was in line of duty
Thus, SPO2 Mecayers death is compensable as it happened
right in the place where he was required to be and while he
was on duty notwithstanding the fact that the killing was
personal in nature.
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 14-02-15
(Compensability of injuries or death of the soldiers and policemen when
responding to a crime of situation when they are not at their assigned
post.)
To declare the compensability of injuries and its resulting
disability or death, sustained by the soldiers and policemen
when responding to a crime situations or when performing
their sworn duties as law enforcers while they are not at their
assigned posts.
Valeriano v. ECC
SC:
The Court ruled that petitioners injuries and consequent
disability were not work-connected and thus not compensable.
Petitioner was not able to demonstrate solidly how his job as a
firetruck driver was related to the injuries he had suffered.
That he sustained the injuries after pursuing a purely personal
and social function having dinner with some friends is clear
from the records of the case. His injuries were not acquired at
his work place; nor were they sustained while he was
performing an act within the scope of his employment or in
pursuit of an order of his superior. The Court also ruled that
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
the 24-hour duty doctrine cannot be applied to petitioners
case because he was neither at his assigned work place nor in
pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met an accident.
But the more important justification for the Courts stance is
that he was not doing an act within his duty and authority as a
firetruck driver, or any other act of such nature, at the time he
sustained his injuries.
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 12-03-08
(DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OD DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEEE DUE
TO ASSUALT WHEN THE SAME OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE
PERFOMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUCNTIONS NOTWHITSTANDING THE FACT
THAT THE MOTIVE ISPERSONAL IN NATURE)
To declare the compensability of death of an employee due to
assault notwithstanding the fact the motive us persona in
nature if the same occurred in any of the following situations,
in addition to those provided under Item II of Circular No. 03-
709 dated 22 July 2009:
1. The Employee was at his assigned/designated workplace, or at
a place where his work requires him to be;
2. The employee was executing an order from employer
regardless of the time and pace of the incident, or in the
performance of his official functions; or
3. The employee was going to or coming from his workplace,
subject to the existing guidelines of the same.
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 15-04-15
(DELCARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY
EMPLOYEE AT PLACES OF RECREATION WITHIN THE EMPLOYERS
PREMISES)
To declare the compensability of injuries sustained by
employees on the places of recreation within the premises of
the employer, within an allowed period;
Paragraph 6.1 of Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068, dated
August 5, 1993, is hereby modified or amended to read as
follows:
Personal Comfort Doctrine
6.1 Acts performed by an employee
a. Within the time and space limits of his employment
to minister to personal comfort such as satisfaction of his
thirst, hunger or other demands
b. While on the places of recreation within the
employers premises, or
c. To protect himself from extreme temperature in a
place within the employers premises,
Shall be deemed incidental to his employment and
injuries which the employee suffered in the performance
of such acts shall be considered compensable and arising
out of and in the course of employment.
ECC CIRCULAR NO. 15-01-20
(ADVISORY ON THE DEFINITION OF MISSING PERSONS UDNER EC
BOARD RESILUTION NO. 14-07-20)
Advisory is issued in relation to the implementation of Board
Resolution No. 14-70-20 (Guidelines on the Grant of EC
benefits due to Calamity or Fatal Event Amending for this
Purpose Paragraph 5 of Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068):
The following are the series of events which should be
considered in the grant of EC benefits:
1. The word missing refers to unknown fate or there is no
trace of whereabouts of a worker, employee and
uninformed personnel while he/she is in the performance
of his/her duties during calamities or fatal events.
2. The worker employee or uninformed personnel was not
seen or heard from after the lapse of four years from
occurrence of the incident.
3. The disappearance of the worker, employee or
uninformed personnel gives rise to presumption of death.
26
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
4. The death of the worker, employee or uninformed
personnel arises out of and in the course of the
employment.
Amended Rules on EC
1987 Rules:
o Coverage, Registration, Compensability, Liability,
Employers Contribution, Definition of Terms,
Benefits, Medical Services, Appliances and Supplies,
Rehabilitation Services, Temporary Total Disability,
Permanent Total Disability, Permanent Partial
Disability, Death , Funeral Benefit, Beneficiaries,
Employers Records and Notices, Accreditation,
Settlement of Claims, Review by the Commission,
Penalties and Implementing Provision.
Annex A (Occupational Disease)
Annex B (Prescribed Minimum Standards For Periodic
Medical Examinations Designed For The Early Detection of
Occupation Disease)
Annex C (Medical Benefits)
Limitation to compensability
Section 1. Limitation No compensation shall be allowed to the employee
or his dependents when injury, sickness, disability or death was
occasioned by any of the following:
1. His intoxication
2. His wilful attention to injure or kill himself or another; or
3. His notorious negligence.
Intoxication persons condition in being under the influence of liquor or
prohibited drugs to the extent that his accts, words or conduct are
impaired visibly as to prevent him from physically and mentally engaging
in the duties of his employment
Notorious negligence something more than mere or simple negligence;
deliberate act to disregard own personal safety
GSIS v. Angel
SC:
When the law upon the facts, we conclude that the death of Sgt.
Angel did not result from an accident which is compensable
under PD 626. It was not on the contrary occasioned by an
intentional or designed act which removes the resulting death
from the coverage of the State Insurance Fund. It is unexpected
that the discussion below by the GSIS, the ECC and the Court of
Appeals, veered away from the indispensable antecedent that
the death must because b accident and instead, focused on the
requirement that the death must arise out of or in the course of
employment. Such that, the ECC denied compensability
because:
Clearly the deceased was not performing his official duties at
the time of the incident. On the contrary, he was investigated
regarding his alleged involvement on a pilferage/gunrunning
case when he was found dead in his cell, an activity which is
foreign and unrelated to his employment as a soldier. Thus, the
protective mantle of the law cannot be extended to him as the
documents appear bereft of any showing to justify causal
connection between the death and his employment.
BENEFITS
1. Medical services, appliances and supplies;
2. Rehabilitation services;
3. Temporary total disability benefit
4. Permanent total disability benefit
5. Permanent total disability benefit
6. Permanent partial disability benefit
7. Death Benefit and
8. Funeral Benefit (P20k to P30k B.R 16-07-28 for public, B. R
16-05-18 for private sector)
Beneficiaries
The beneficiaries shall be either primary or secondary, and
determined at the time of employees death.
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
The following beneficiaries shall be considered primary:
the legitimate spouse living with the employee at the time of
the employees death until he remarries; and
Legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or acknowledged
natural children, who are unmarried, not gainfully employed,
not over 21 years of age, or over 21 years of age provided he is
incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to physical or
mental defect which is congenital or acquired during minority.
The following beneficiaries shall be considered secondary:
The legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the employee
for regular support;
The legitimate descendants and illegitimate children who are
unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age, or
over 21 years of age provided he is incapacitated and incapable
of self-support due to physical or mental defect which is
congenital or acquired during minority.
Primary beneficiaries shall have priority claim to death
benefits over secondary beneficiaries. Whenever there are
primary beneficiaries, no death benefit shall be paid to his
secondary beneficiaries.
Bartolome v. SSS
SC:
In the same vein, the term parents in the phrase dependent
parents in the afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is
use and ought to be taken in its general sense and cannot be
unduly limited to legitimate parents as what the ECC did. The
phrase dependent parents should, therefore, include all
parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by
nature or by adaption. When the law does not distinguish, one
should not distinguish. Plainly, dependent parents are
parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or
adoption, who are in need of support or assistance.
Does recovery from State Insurance Fund bar a claim for benefits under
SSS and/or GSIS?
Article 179. Extent of Liability. Unless otherwise provided,
the liability of the State Insurance Fund under this Title shall
be exclusive and in place of all other liabilities of the employer
to the employee or his dependents or anyone otherwise
entitled to recover damages on behalf of the employee or his
dependents. The payment of compensation under this Title
shall not bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section
699 of the Revised Administrative Code, Republic Act
numbered eleven hundred sixty-one, as amended, Republic Act
numbered six hundred ten, as amended, Republic Act
numbered forty-eight hundred sixty four, as amended, and
other laws whose benefits are administered by the System or
by other agencies of the government.
RA 8282 Section 15 of RA 1161 was deleted in RA 8282
RA 8291 section 55 does not allow double recovery
Prescriptive Period
Art. 201: 3 years from time to time the cause of action accrued
Where to file? SSS for private and GSIS for public
When a cause of action accrues? From date of occurrence of the
contingency
ECC v. Sanico (GR. 134028, Dec. 17, 1999) prescription not to
be reckoned with PTB became known but from time employee
lost his earning capacity (terminated from jobs due to illness)
Prescriptive period
o 20 years basta SSS, then 10 years if disability.
o Under the SS Law, the 20 year feriod does not cover
criminal action
o GSIS- 4years except life insurance or retirement
benepits
o 3 years under EC
In SSS, Lo v. CA which emphasize the reckoning point of the 20
year prescriptive period
27
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation EH 408 (2016-2017)
o SC said it should be reckoned from the discovery of
the delinquency (so bisag unsa na kadugay pero
wala pa nabal.an ang delinquency, d mu run ang
period)
The 3-year prescriptive period under the EC
o Art 201: 3 years from the cause of action accrued
(from the date of the occurrence of the contingency)
o ECC v. Sanico prescription not to be reckoned when
Pulmonary TB became known but from time
employee lost his earning capacity (terminated due
to illness)
Emphasizing this because this is
connected under SSS. The case of Ortega
v. CA where the SC made a distinction
between disability falling under SS law
and disability under labor code (EC Law)
To emphasize, there is disability whether
there is permanent or temporary under
SS depende sa body parts/system
involved. Without taking into
consideration whether the employee has
is earning/ was performing gainful
employment
Under EC Law, if there is a particular body
part injured, there is a corresponding
number of months that the employee will
fail to perform gainful employment
So the key point/element
under EC to reckon the 3 year
prescriptive period is when the
time the employee lost his
earning capacity (the time
when he was terminated)
without referring to the body
part or system injured/
suffered (there must be a
relation between the disease
and the loss of earning capacity
or termination)
Obra v. SSS
We agree with the petitioner that her claim for death benefits
under the SSS should be considered as the Employees Compensation
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
the EC claims are filed. As correctly contended by the petitioner, when she
filed her claim for death benefits with the SSS under the SS Law, she had
already notified the SSS of her EC claim, because the SSS is the same
agency where claims for payment of sickness/death/disability benefits
under P.D. No. 626 are filed.
This case refers to the same nature of benefits
This ruling will apply (I SUBMIT) only if claims under SSS and
EC are the same in nature
ECC Board Resolution No. 10-3-45
o When a claimant filed a claim for disability of death
benefits before the Systems either under SSS or
GSIS, the claim for the same benefits under EC
should be considered filed
o The filing of disability or death benefits either under
the SSS or GSIS within 3 years from the time the
cause of action accrued would stop the running of
the prescriptive period under P.D. 626
EC claim must be filed within 3 years from:
o In case of sickness-time when the employee was
unable to report for work
o Injury-time of the accident
Babiano | Eupea | Heramiz | Icao
o Death-date of death
EC Board Resolution No. 11-04-10
The prescriptive period for filing compensation claims should
be reckoned from the time the employee lost his earning capacity
Defenses against EC claim (employer has no participation, so
he cans invoke this defenses)
o Not work connected or not occupational
o Limitation (intoxication, etc)
o No notice was giver to employer
Art. 212 of LC
o Prescription
o
Ayaw kalibog daw ani:
o Ang IRR-1987
o Ang Rules of Procedure sa EC-1995
o
ECC Board Resolution 10-10-157
o To amend rule III, Section 3 of the RoP for the filing
and disposition of employees compensation claims
which provides:
Sec. 3-where to file. Public sector- GSIS;
private sector-SSS
o The said section shall now read as follows:
Sec. 3. Where to file-all EC claims maybe
filed by the claimant at his option in the
Regional office/branch of the System
nearest to the place of work or residence
Does recovery from State insurance fund bar a claim for benefits under
SSS and/or GSIS?
o Art. 179. Extent of Liability-unless otherwise
provided, the liability of the State Insurance Fund
under this title shall be exclusive and in place of all
other liabilities of the employer to the employee or
his dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to
recover damages on behalf of the employee or his
dependents. The payment of compensation under
this title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as
provided for in Sec. 699 of the Revised Admin Code,
RA 1161, as amended, RA 610, as amended, RA
4864, as amended, and other laws whose benefits
are administered by the System or by other agencies
o RA 8282-section 15 of RA 1161 was deleted in RA
8282
o RA 8291 Section 55 does not allow double recovery
28