1.) PAJARILLO, ET AL VS.
SSS
Facts:
The petitioners are owners of fishing boats. As
owners, they enter into agreement with the so-called
patrons or pilots, whereby the latter take charge of
petitioners’ fishing vessels, equipment, and gear used for
fishing. Once entrusted with the equipment, the pilot hires
the crew to man the boat and secures their provisions.
These men have no regular income. If the trip yields a
catch, the proceeds thereof are divided into three parts:
1st part goes to the owner of the boat;
2nd part is set aside to cover expenses like crude oil
and for maintenance of the boat;and
3RD part is divided among the men.
The petitioners (owners) were required to register as
employers with the SSS and pay the prescribed premiums
pursuant to RA 1161, so they filed a joint petition with the
SSC claiming that there exists no employer-employee
relationship between them and the crew of their fishing
vessels, and praying that they be exempted from the
compulsory coverage of the law, however, SSC denied their
petition.
Issue:
WON there exists an employer-employee relationship
between the petitioners and the crew members of their
respective fishing boats within the meaning of RA 1161
Held:
No.
In the case at bar, the pilots are not under the orders of
the boat-owners as regards their employment. They go out
to sea not upon direction of the boat-owners, but upon their
own volition as to when, how long and where to go fishing.
Much less do the boat-owners in any way control the crew-
members with whom the former have no relationship
whatsoever. These crew-members simply join every trip for
which the pilots allow them, without any reference to the
owners of the vessel.
In the present case, neither the pilots nor the crew-
members receive compensation from the boat-owners. They
only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts.
There is no showing that outside of their one-third share,
the boat-owners have anything to do with the distribution
of the rest of the catch among the pilots and the crew-
members. The latter perform no service for the boat-
owners, but mainly for their own benefit.
The services rendered by the fishermen are no
different from the agricultural labor performed by a share
or leasehold tenant or worker, which is specifically
excluded from the definition of "employment", and
exempted from the coverage of the Social Security Act.
2.) IN RE: PETITION VS. SSS
Facts:
On September 1, 1958, the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila filed with the Social Security
Commission a request that "Catholic Charities, and all
religious and charitable institutions and/or organizations,
which are directly or indirectly, wholly or partially,
operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila," be
exempted from compulsory coverage of Republic Act No.
1161, as amended, otherwise known as the Social Security
Law of 1954. It claimed that the said Act is a labor law and
does not cover religious and charitable institutions but is
limited to businesses and activities organized for profit,
however, it was denied by the SSC.
Issue:
WON the religious and charitable institutions are
covered by SSA
Held:
Yes.
The term employer" as used in the law is defined as
any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who
carries 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" (par.
[c], see. 8), while an "employee" refers to "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" (par. [d], see. 8).
"Employment", according to paragraph [i] of said section 8,
covers any service performed by an employer except those
expressly enumerated thereunder, like employment under
the Government, or any of its political subdivisions,
branches or instrumentalities including corporations owned
and controlled by the Government, domestic service in a
private home, employment purely casual, etc.
From the above legal provisions, it is apparent that the
coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship of more or
less permanent nature and extends to employment of all
kinds except those expressly excluded.
In the case at bar, the definition of the term
"employer" is, we think, sufficiently comprehensive as to
include religious and charitable institutions or entities not
organized for profit, like herein appellant, within its
meaning. This is made more evident by the fact that it
contains an exception in which said institutions or entities
are not included. And, certainly, had the Legislature really
intended to limit the operation of the law to entities
organized for profit or gain, it would not have defined an
"employer" in such a way as to include the Government and
yet make an express exception of it.
The Social Security Act, being in fact a social
legislation, compatible with the policy of the Church to
ameliorate living conditions of the working class, appellant
cannot arbitrarily delimit the extent of its provisions to
relations between capital and labor in industry and
agriculture.
3.) SSS vs. CA, MLA JOCKEY CLUB

Facts:

That there are only two (2) racing entities in the

Philippines, namely, the [Manila Jockey Club, Inc.], and the
[Philippine Racing Club, Inc.], whose clubs and personnel
are expressly prohibited by the [Games and Amusements
Board] Rules from owning a race horse. The Clubs’
handicapper prepare a list of the entries to enable the horse
owners to determine whether to join the schedule race. If
the owners decide to join, they will file with the club a
declaration stating the name of the horse and of the jockey.
For a person to be a jockey, he must first secure a license
from the Games and Amusements Board, And upon
payment to the club of the nominal fee of P6.00, the jockey
may use the race tracks for training, may participate in
racing. There are stewards who are officials of the club in-
charge to supervise the conduct of the races and enforce
rules as well as penalize the mounts and jockey for
infraction of rules. There was a resolution from petitioner
SSS, which it held that the jockeys are covered from the
coverage of Social Security Act since there is an employer-
employee relationship between the two clubs and the
jockeys, however, it was reversed by the CA. Hence, this
petition.

Issue:

WON jockeys may be considered as employees of the

respondent clubs

Held:

No.
Under the Social Security Act, the term "Employee —
Any person who performs services for an 'employer' in
which either or both mental and physical efforts are used
and who received compensation for such services, where
there is an employer-employee relationship.

The SC affirmed the decision of the CA which held

that there was no employer-employee relationship between
jockeys and the clubs for the following reasons:
a.) The selection and and employment of the jockeys
is made by the race horse owner whose horse the jockey
will ride, not by the race club. Upon the other hand, the
jockey decides for himself the horse he is to mount.
b.) There was no control exercised by the respondent
clubs over the jockeys. Such control is exercised by the
racing stewards who are entrusted with the duty to
supervise the conduct of the the races and enforce the
Games and Amusements Board rules. Such powers and
authority of the stewards are not under the control of the
race clubs but proceed from the law and by the Games and
Amusement Board rules.

Basis: Investment Planning Corp. VS. SSS