You are on page 1of 10

Pointers in Agrarian Reform and other social legislation:

I.

SS ACT OF 1997

1. JURISDICTION;
DACION
EN
PAGO
IMPLEMENTATION (SSS V ATLANTIC GULF)
SSS VS ATLANTIC GULF
-atlantic filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages against SSS before RTC of Batangas City
-from the averment in the complaint, private respondents are
seeking to implement the deed of assignment which they had
drafted and submitted to SSS sometime in July 2001, pursuant
to SSSs letter addressed to AG&P dated 23 April 2001
approving AG&P and SEMIRARAs delinquencies through
dacion en pago, which as of 31 March 2001, amount to
P29,261,902.45.
When the deed of assignment was submitted sss did not sign it
because there was a conflict as to the amount of
delinquencies. Mao na adto sila sa court to compel sss to sign
the dacion en pago. Sss filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground lack of jurisdiction. Citing section 5, RTC dismissed.
-ca reversed RTC decision and held that the subject of
complaint(kuwang and slide)
ISSUE: which body has the jurisdiction to entertain the
controversy arising from the non-implementation of a dacion en
pago agreed upon by the parties as a means of settlement of
private respondents liabilities?
SC; from the allegations of respondents complaint, it readily
appears that there is no longer dispute with respect to
respondents accountability to SSS. Respondent, had in fact
admitted their delinquency and offered to settle them by way of
dacion en pago subsequently approved by the SSS in
Resolution no. 270s-2001.

The Old Rule says it is by mere notice of appeal but in the


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

2. REP V ASIAPRO - WEEKLY STIPENDS OR


EXCESS IN SERVICE SURPLUS; E-E
REPUBLIC VS ASIAPRO CCOPERATION
-respondent Asiapro, as cooperative is composed of ownersmembers. Its primary objective is to provide savings and credit
facilities and to develop other livelihood services for its ownersmembers.
Are members of the cooperative covered compulsorily under
SSS?

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.

-In the discharge of the primary objective, respondent entered


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

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

The same four-fold test, the same elements.


Independent contracting and labor only employees = not
covered by SS law.

- 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.

-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the


exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC provides that:
ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission:
Xxx
xxxx
xxx
6. except claims for employees compensation, SS, medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from EE
relations including those of persons in domestic or household
service including an amount exceeding P5000 regardless of
whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, it
would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof,
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by the
system. Hence, the question on the existence of EE
relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage of
SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and
falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is primarily charged with
the duty of settling disputes arising under SSL of 1997.
-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ff
elements are considered:
(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay kapuy
type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the employers
control of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish.
Connect this to the case of Co vs People
SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.
Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed from
the supposed employee against the supposed employer. That
there was no EE relationship. The ruling was final and
executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang kadtong supposed
employer in the fiscals office for violation of the SS law.
Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC. Ni.file ug motion to quash
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. And the court sustained,
saying that there is no more need to determine the EE
relationship because that has already been determined by the
Labor Courts that there was absence of EE relationship. And
since SS law coverage is predicated on the existence then
there should be no more criminal case to be filed against the
supposed employer.
SC: the mandatory coverage
Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory
ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the ruling
on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not end the
issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which may be
different to that of the Labor Courts.
SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)
1.
expressly provided in the service contract that
respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the selection
and engagement of the owners-members as well as team
leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.
2.
The weekly stipends or the so called share in the
service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its
owners-members WERE IN REALITY WAGES, as the same
were equivalent to an amount not lower than that prescribed by
the labor laws, rules and regulations including the wage order
applicable to the area and industry or the same shall not be
lower than the prevailing rates of wages. It cannot be doubted
then that those stipends or share in the service surplus are
indeed wages because these are given to the owners-

members as compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to


respondent cooperatives client, stanfilco.
If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag
dividends sa corporation.
3.
Power to investigate cooperative
4.
Control of cooperative

3. PROJECT EMPLOYEES (CHUA V CA)


Coverage of Employees
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is
covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
A household-helper is any person who renders
domestic or household services exclusively to a household
employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and other
similar occupations.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard contract
or employment between the seafarer and the manning agency
which, together with the foreign ship owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government, international
organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality based in the
Philippines, which entered into an administrative agreement
with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino workers.
Are laborers continuously assigned to construction projects as
carpenters, wielders, are compulsory covered?
Case of CHUA vs CA: there was still an EE-ER relationship, so
covered. mao na, probationary employees, they are covered
under SSS. why? Regardless of the nature of the employment.
EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.
So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if you have
an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for
example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS law in
the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist na ang
SSS but the question there, what is the effect of your payment
kung dunay labor case gifile later on? Because for me, that
may be considered as an admission that there existed an EEER relationship. That is practical why? you try to avoid criminal
case.
The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to the
report the employer coverage to the SSS.

4. TAXI DRIVER ENGAGED ON BOUNDARY BASIS


They (taxi drivers) are EE just like jeepney drivers are EE to
their operators. Even if they receive "boundary basis"
compensation there is still an ER-EE relationship. The method
of fixing compensation is not determinative of an EE-ER
relationship. As long as the ER exercises the right to control
(not necessarily actual control), there is EE-ER relationship.
Based on an article I found. Allow me, however to present the
following comments and observations relative to your proposal:
1. Legal basis for SSS coverage of drivers of public transport
The legal basis for the compulsory SSS coverage of drivers of
public transport may be derived from SSS Circular No. 79-T
published on 03 April 1970 (Annex A). Said circular provides
the bases of coverage, premium contribution, and allowable
daily deduction or earnings of jeepney drivers of jeepney
operators, salient features of which are as follows:

a. Basis of Coverage - Jeepney drivers are employees of


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

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

b. Basis of Premium Contribution - If the earnings of jeepney


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

Both do not have substantial capitalization. Under the Labor


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

BASIS OF COVERAGE The Supreme Court held that jeepney drivers are employees of
jeepney operators in the case of the NATIONAL LABOR
UNION vs. DINGLASAN, L-7945, 23 March 1956. The Court
RULED:
"...The drivers did not invest a single centavo in the business
and the respondent is the exclusive owner of the jeeps. The
management of the business is in the respondent's hands. For
even if the drivers of the jeeps take material possession of the
jeeps, still the respondent as owner thereof and holder of a
certificate of public convenience is entitled to exercise, as he
does and under the law he must, supervision over the drivers
by seeing to it that they follow the route prescribed by the
Public Service Commission and rules and regulations
promulgates by its as regards their operation. X X X The only
features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee
between the respondent and the drivers, x x x x are the fact
that he does not pay them fixed wage but their compensation is
the excess of the total amount of fares earned or collected by
them over and above the amount x x x which they agreed to
pay to the respondent, the owner of the jeeps, and the fact that
the gasoline burned by the jeeps is for the account of the
drivers. These two features are not, however, sufficient to
withdraw the relationship between them from the employeremployee, x x x. Not having any interest in the business
because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of the
jeeps and did not participate in the management thereof, their
service as drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution o
the business the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot be
sustained. In the lease of chattels the lessor loses control over
the chattel leased although the lessee cannot make sure
thereof, for he would be responsible for damages to the lessor
should he do so. In this case, there is a supervision and sort of
control that owner of the jeeps exercise over the drivers.. It is
an attempt by ingenious scheme to withdraw the the
relationship between the owner of the laws enacted to promote
industrial peace."
As such employees, jeepney drivers are therefore covered
under Sec. 10 of the Social Security Law.

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

(b) the workers recruited and placed by such persons are


performing activities directly related to the principal business of
such employer.
TN: naa sa lain notes. Independent contracting and labor only
employees are not covered by the SS Law.

6. EMPLOYMENT SERVICES NOT COVERED:


PURELY CASUAL (MANSAL V GO-CHECO)
Very Important: EE Relationship because in SS law there
are employees that are excluded from coverage, so even if
they perform services and the receive compensation, they are
excluded because of the ABSENCE of employer-employee
relationship.
(j) Employment - Any service performed by an employee for his
employer except:
(1) Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employer;
(2) Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel
by an employee if he is employed when such vessel is outside
the Philippines;
(3) Service performed in the employ of the Philippine
Government or instrumentality or agency thereof;
(4) Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or
international
organization,
or
their
wholly-owned
instrumentality: Provided, however, That this exemption
notwithstanding, any foreign government, international
organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality employing
workers in the Philippines or employing Filipinos outside of the
Philippines, may enter into an agreement with the Philippine
Government for the inclusion of such employees in the SSS
except those already covered by their respective civil service
retirement systems: Provided, further, That the terms of such
agreement shall conform with the provisions of this Act on
coverage and amount of payment of contributions and benefits:
Provided, finally, That the provisions of this Act shall be
supplementary to any such agreement; and
(5) Such other services performed by temporary and other
employees which may be excluded by regulation of the
Commission. Employees of bona fide independent contractors
shall not be deemed employees of the employer engaging the
service of said contractors.
Employment services excluded. You can find this also on SS
book.
FOCUS on number 1 and number 5.

Employees of bonafide independent contractor shall


not be deemed employees of the employeer engaging the
service of the said contractors. (For purposes of the bar, this
will be important.)
1. "purely casual employment" and not for the
purpose of occupation for business of the employee .
o
The person that is engaged there is actually an
employee, but is purely casual and not for the purpose of
occupation or business of the employee.
case of MANSAL VS. GUCHECO Meaning of number (1).
The work of the mechanic is purely casual because it is not
part of the business in the operation of the lumber business.
BAR:
I think it was a warehouse or building selling
merchandise. naguba ang atop because of the storm and the
carpenter is hired to fix the roof.
Q: whether the carpenter should be compulsorily covered?
Answer is # 1. It was purely casual employment and
the services performed by the carpenter are not for the
purpose of occupation for business of the employer.
But there can be a lot of arguments here. What is
purely casual, that is not also defined under SS law.
Agricultural laborer- the finding is also based on the presence
of the elements of employer employee relationship.

7. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER
Coverage of Employers
a.
An employer, or any person who uses the services of
another person in business, trade, industry or any undertaking.
b.
A social, civil, professional, charitable and other nonprofit organization which hire the services of employees are
considered employers.
c.
A foreign government, international organization or its
wholly-owned instrumentality such as embassy in the
Philippines, may enter into an administrative agreement with
the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino employees

8. SICKNESS BENEFIT NUMBER OF DAYS THAT


CAN BE PAID
Sickness Benefit

A daily cash allowance paid for the number of days a


member is unable to work due to sickness or injury. The
amount is equivalent to 90% of the members average daily
salary credit.

Requirements:
1.
He is unable to work due to sickness or injury and
confined either in a hospital or at home for at least 4 days;
2. He has paid at least 3 months of contributions within the 12month period immediately before the semester of
sickness/injury
In computing, exclude the semester of sickness. A semester
refers to two consecutive quarters ending in the quarter of
sickness. A quarter refers to three consecutive months ending
March, June, September or December.
3. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and
Why? Because if there is a company paying, so why will the
system pay you? Supposedly, it is the fact that you will not
receive anything from the company due to your inability to work
where the system will compensate.

4. He has notified the employer or SSS, if separated, voluntary


or self-employed.
Notify employer within 5 calendar days after start of
sickness/injury and employer must notify SSS within 5 days
after receipt of notification. Notice is not required if members
confinement is in hospital (why? Because it can easily be
checked) or member got sick while working or within company
premises. (within the company premises = the employer is
supposed to know that you got sick)
Note: Requirement 2 is very common to all benefits
For example (from the guidebook of SSS): SSS member gets
sick in October 2006 for 20 days.
a.
The semester of sickness would be from July 2006 to
December 2006. two quarters including the October 2006
b.
The 12-month period would be from July 2005 to June
2006 (where the six highest monthly salary credits will be
chosen).
It is during the 12-month period where SSS would have to
know whether there was payment of at least three months
contribution.
MSC = Monthly Salary Credits
If maglahi2x ug sweldo kay balhin2x ug amo, it is the 6th
highest MSC that will be chosen.
In no case shall the daily sickness benefit be paid longer than
one hundred twenty (120) days in one (1) calendar year, nor
shall any unused portion of the one hundred twenty (120) days
of sickness benefit granted under this section be carried
forward and added to the total number of compensable days
allowable in the subsequent year.
Limit as to number of days (above) because in sickness, the
salary credit will have to be multiplied with the number of days
that the member gets sick hence the maximum (stated above).

9. MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFIT


Maternity Benefit

It is a daily cash allowance granted to female member


who was unable to work due to childbirth or miscarriage.No
marriage requirement.

It is equivalent to 100% of members average daily


salary credit (wala pa niy deduction ha?) multiplied by 60 days
for normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for caesarian
section delivery.
Qualifications for entitlement: (same with sickness)
1.
She has paid at least three monthly contributions
within the 12-month period immediately preceding the
semester of her childbirth or miscarriage
2.
She has given the required notification of her
pregnancy through her employer if employed, or to SSS if
separated, voluntary or self-employed.
For example: SSS member gives birth in December 2006.
a.
The semester of contingency would be from July 2006
to December 2006.
b.
The 12-month period before the semester of
contingency would be from July 2005 to June 2006.
Deliveries covered: (Important aspect)
Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages shall
be paid starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)

Miscarriages include abortion. SSS website only mentioned


abortion, no qualification whether it is intentional or
unintentional but according to SSS abortion should only cover
unintentional. Why? According to them, there is a criminal
responsibility on intentional abortion.
But is it not that regardless or criminal liability for as long as the
facts comply with the requirements, in (sirs) opinion, it should
cover intentional abortion but I have no basis for that. Because
for me, the purpose of SS law is to benefit the employee. What
is the purpose of SS law with respect the employer? To oblige
the employer because remember the employer does not get
anything from the SS law. Employer has a lot of obligations and
responsibilities under the SS law.
Note: Delivery of twins/triplets/quadra/etc. = one delivery only
Notice required:
As soon as pregnancy is confirmed, member must
notify immediately employer or SSS, if unemployed, etc. and
probable date of childbirth at least 60 days from date of
conception. Employer must in turn notify SSS after receipt of
notification. Failure to observe the rule may result in denial.
Can a member apply for sickness benefit if she has been paid
maternity benefit?
No, because as a rule, no member can be entitled to two
benefits for the same period.

10. WHO DETERMINES E-E?


11. EFFECT OF FINAL JUDGMENT AT NLRC ON E-E
WHO SHOULD DETERMINE E-E?
-since the existence of EE rel. between the respondent coop
and its owners-members was put in issue and considering that
the compulsory coverage of the SSS law is predicated on the
existence of such relationship, it behooves the petitioner SSC
to determine if there is really an EE rel existing between
respondent coop and its owners-members.
The same four-fold test, the same elements.
Independent contracting and labor only employees = not
covered by SS law.
-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC provides that:
ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission:
Xxx
xxxx
xxx
6. except claims for employees compensation, SS, medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from EE
relations including those of persons in domestic or household
service including an amount exceeding P5000 regardless of
whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, it
would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof,
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by the
system. Hence, the question on the existence of EE
relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage of
SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and
falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is primarily charged with
the duty of settling disputes arising under SSL of 1997.

-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ff


elements are considered:
(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay kapuy
type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the employers
control of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish.
Connect this to the case of Co vs People
SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.
Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed from
the supposed employee against the supposed employer. That
there was no EE relationship. The ruling was final and
executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang kadtong supposed
employer in the fiscals office for violation of the SS law.
Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC. Ni.file ug motion to quash
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. And the court sustained,
saying that there is no more need to determine the EE
relationship because that has already been determined by the
Labor Courts that there was absence of EE relationship. And
since SS law coverage is predicated on the existence then
there should be no more criminal case to be filed against the
supposed employer.
SC: the mandatory coverage
Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory
ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the ruling
on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not end the
issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which may be
different to that of the Labor Courts.
SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)
1.
expressly provided in the service contract that
respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the selection
and engagement of the owners-members as well as team
leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.
2.
The weekly stipends or the so called share in the
service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its
owners-members WERE IN REALITY WAGES, as the same
were equivalent to an amount not lower than that prescribed by
the labor laws, rules and regulations including the wage order
applicable to the area and industry or the same shall not be
lower than the prevailing rates of wages. It cannot be doubted
then that those stipends or share in the service surplus are
indeed wages because these are given to the ownersmembers as compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to
respondent cooperatives client, stanfilco.
If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag
dividends sa corporation.
3.
Power to investigate cooperative
4.
Control of cooperative

12. CONTINGENCIES
COVERED;
WHERE EMPLOYER ADVANCES

BENEFITS

-SS evolved from an age-old search of man for protection


against poverty, which breeds grave social ills that not only
threaten his survival but also erode his sense of human dignity.
It therefore becomes the duty of the state to operate a
mechanism that would provide such protection to its people.
Poverty in the context of contingency as contemplated in the
SS law. Contingencies contemplated in SS law which the
program seeks to address: death, old age, retirement,
sickness, pregnancy, or disability.

1.
2.
3.

-the system established a program which relieves financial


want by restoring income lost through inability to work due to
death, old age, sickness, pregnancy or disability
Example, if a covered member of sss dies, he may be left by
his surviving spouse who may not have any work or any source
of income; or a covered employee retires.
-so workers are protected from anxieties arising out of
contingencies
-but another phenomenon has aroused a deep anxiety for
working class- globalization (ie, cost-cutting, productivity
enhancement, downsizing of personnel, termination of jobs.)
These may be financial but these are not contingencies in the
eyes of the ss law. Termination of job and unemployment not
included in the contingency.

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.

Employers need to advance:


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

EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.

13. CLAIMS UNDER LABOR CODE VIS--VIS SSS


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

14. COMPULSORY COVERAGE; WHEN EFFECTIVE


COMPULSORY COVERAGE (Memorize!) importance of the
word compulsory NO CHOICE hahahaha
Even if the household helper requests not to be covered, which
normally happens, nganu man? maibanan man akoang sweldo
ayaw lng deducti noh anyway naa btw para SS ayaw nlng ideduct. Assuming imong gi report, wa nimo gi-deduct, ang
employer manubag sa balaod! Dili ang employee and
remember wala rabai relationship. Inig kiha sa employeer sa
employee, aw kapapa ang employer .
Coverage of Employees
a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is
covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
A household-helper is any person who renders
domestic or household services exclusively to a household
employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and other
similar occupations.

Are laborers continuously assigned to construction projects as


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

So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if you have


an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for
example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS law in
the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist na ang
SSS but the question there, what is the effect of your payment
kung dunay labor case gifile later on? Because for me, that
may be considered as an admission that there existed an EEER relationship. That is practical why? you try to avoid criminal
case.
The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to the
report the employer coverage to the SSS.
Compulsory coverage
1.
For an employee on the first day of employment
2.
For an employer on the first day the employer hires
employee/s.
*Employer is given 30 days from date of employment to report
the employee for coverage to SSS.
3.
For self-employed upon payment of first valid
contribution, in case of initial coverage.

15. APPEAL FROM SSC; NON-APPLICABILITY OF


TECHNICAL RULES
Sec 4. "(c) Court Review. The decision of the Commission
upon any disputed matter may be reviewed both upon the law
and the facts by the Court of Appeals. For the purpose of such
review the procedure concerning appeals from the Regional
Trial Court shall be followed as far as practicable and
consistent with the purposes of this Act. Appeal from a decision
of the Commission must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
notification of such decision. If the decision of the Commission
involves only questions of law, the same shall be reviewed by
the Supreme Court. No appeal bond shall be required. The
case shall be heard in a summary manner, and shall take
precedence over all cases, except that in the Supreme Court,
criminal cases wherein life imprisonment or death has been
imposed by the trial court shall take precedence. No appeal
shall act as supersedeas or a stay of the order of the
Commission unless the Commission itself, or the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court, shall so order.
How appeal is taken?
By verified petition for review (The Revised Rules of SSC
[1997]).
*Note: 1990 Rules of SCC state that it is by notice of appeal.
6. Section 2 Technical rules not binding These rules shall be
liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Social

Security Act of 1997 and to assist the parties in obtaining


expeditious and inexpensive settlement or resolution of any
dispute arising under the said Act.
In any proceeding, which shall be non-litigious in nature, the
rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law shall not be
controlling.
CASE: Signey vs. SSS
SC: SC will not disturb findings of fact of the SSS which are
supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the SSC
and the Court of Appeals.
Moreover, petitioner ought to be reminded of the basic rule that
this court is not a trier of facts.
It is a well-known rule that in proceedings before administrative
bodies, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
binding. The important consideration is that both parties were
afforded an opportunity to be heard and they availed
themselves of it to present their respective positions on the
matter in dispute.
It must likewise be noted that under section 2, Rule 1 of the
SSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the rules of evidence
prevailing in the courts of law shall not be controlling. In the
case at bar, the existence of a prior subsisting marriage
between the deceased and Editha is supported by the
substantial evidence. Petitioner, who has fully availed of her
right to be heard, only relied on the waiver of Editha and failed
to present any evidence to invalidate or otherwise controvert
the confirmed marriage certificate registered under LCR
Registry No. 2083 on 21 November 1967. She did not even try
to allege and prove any infirmity in the marriage between the
deceased and Editha.

16. BENEFICIARIES; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES


The legal beneficiaries of a member are:

Legally married dependent spouse until he or she


remarries;

Dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted


and illegitimate children.
These two are primary beneficiaries.
Spouse- common-law relationship has no right to claim. Until
he or she remarries ha. Why? There is an assumption in law
that if there is a separation de facto, the assumption is there is
no more dependence. If they are living together, one is
dependent to another. Question here is, what if one is working?
Children- take note, there is also the word "dependent".
Dependent, not gainfully employed, not yet reached the age of
21 yrs. old. Important phrase here: "not gainfully employed".
No definition here in SS, in GSIS, there is.
If single, benefits will go to dependent parents who are
considered secondary beneficiaries.
In absence of both primary and secondary, any other person
designated by member.

17. CONSENT OF SSS ON FILING OF CRIMINAL


ACTION
-

RA 8282, Sec. 28 (i) Criminal action arising from a violation of


the provisions of this Act may be commenced by the SSS or
the employee concerned either under this Act or in appropriate
cases under the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That such
criminal action may be filed by the SSS in the city or
municipality where the SSS office is located, if the violation
was committed within its territorial jurisdiction or in Metro
Manila, at the option of the SSS.

18. LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT AND GOOD FAITH


AS DEFENSES
Tan vs Ballena
In answer to criminal complaint for violation of SS law,
petitioners interposed the defenses of lack of criminal intent
and good faith as their failure to remit was brought about by
alleged economic difficulties, and they have already agreed to
settle their obligations with the SSS through a memorandum of
agreement to pay in installments.
SC: As held by the Court of Appeals, the claims of good faith
and absence of criminal intent for the petitioners'
acknowledged
non-remittance
of
the
respondents'
contributions deserve scant consideration. The violations
charged in this case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a special
law. As such, it belongs to a class of offenses known as mala
prohibita.

19. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD


Sickness Benefit
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member confined in
hospital/home:
For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed within 1
year from last day of confinement;
For home, 1 year from start of illness.
*Failure to file the claim within the prescribed period will result
to denial of claim.
Disability Benefit
10 years from the date of occurrence of disability
Right to Institute (NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION)
Sec. 22 - The right to institute the necessary action against the
employer may be commenced within twenty (20) years from
the time the delinquency is known or the assessment is made
by the SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the case
may be. (normally from the time of discovery)
Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim: (Take note of this)
10 years from the date of occurrence of disability.
(employee filing claims against the system)
In order to contextualize, the other prescriptive period is
section 22: claims against the employer = 20 years (employee
filing claims against employer)
In the SS website, since the law is silent as to the period on
retirement and death and maternity = no prescribed period.
Does it follow that section 22 would apply (20 years)? NOT
necessarily since section 22 is a claims against the
EMPLOYER i.e. (employer was not able to report).

Not needed.

According to SS Commission, the other benefits not


covered, it is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, that is if you have complied
with the notices of requirement.

20. GARCIA V SSC DIRECTOR LIABLE?


Garcia vs SSC
-SSC found Garcia, the sole surviving director of Impact
Corporation, petitioner herein, liable for unremitted SSS
contributions.
Issue is whether or not petitioner, as the only surviving director
of Impact Corporation, can be made solely liable for the
corporate obligations of Impact Corporation pertaining to
unremitted SSS premium contributions and penalties therefore.
- Petitioner challenges the finding of the Court of Appeals that
under Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law, a mere director
or officer of an employer corporation, and not necessarily a
"managing" director or officer, can be held liable for the unpaid
SSS premium contributions.
- Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law provides the
following:
(f)
If the act or omission penalized by this Act be
committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any
other institution, its managing head, directors or partners shall
be liable to the penalties provided in this Act for the offense.
(very interesting provision daw)
SC:
This Court though finds no need to resort to statutory
construction. Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law imposes
penalty on:
(1)
the managing head;
(2)
directors; or
(3)
partners, for offenses committed by a
juridical person
The said provision does not qualify that the director or partner
should likewise be a "managing director" or "managing
partner. The law is clear and unambiguous
Although a corporation once formed is conferred a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the persons comprising
it, it is but a legal fiction introduced for purposes of
convenience and to subserve the ends of justice. The concept
cannot be extended to a point beyond its reasons and policy,
and when invoked in support of an end subversive of this
policy, will be disregarded by the courts.

II.

GSIS Act of 1997


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

2. ARE JUDGES COVERED?

COMPULSORY COVERAGE OF JUDGES UNDER GSIS:


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

3. WHO IS A DEPENDENT LEGITIMATE CHILD?


4. NEW BENEFITS; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES IN
CASE OF SURVIVORSHIP
Beneficiaries under GSIS:
1. When a member or pensioner dies, the primary beneficiaries
(surviving legal spouse and dependent children) or secondary
beneficiaries, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the
applicable survivorship benefits.
2. The primary beneficiaries[1] shall be the following:
a. The legitimate spouse, until s/he re-marries, or cohabits/engages in common-law relationship; and
b. The dependent legitimate, legally adopted or legitimated
children, including illegitimate children, who have not reached
the age of majority, or, have reached the age of majority but
incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to a mental or
physical defect acquired prior to age of majority.
3. The secondary beneficiaries shall be the dependent parents
and, subject to the restrictions on dependent children, the
legitimate descendants[2].
The secondary beneficiaries shall only be entitled to
survivorship benefits if there are no primary beneficiaries.
Meaning of dependent?
Dependent means one who derives his or her main support
from another, meaning, relying, or subject to, someone else for
support; not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform
anything without the will, power, or aid of someone else. (A.M
No. 100119 Ret. February 22, 2001 [ RE: APPLICATION
FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS. MAYLENNE G.
MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ERNESTO R.
MANLAVI])
A.M No. 100119 Ret. February 22, 2001 [ RE: APPLICATION
FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS. MAYLENNE G.
MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ERNESTO R.
MANLAVI)

5. SEPARATION BENEFIT FOR CAUSE


SEPARATION BENEFIT UNDER GSIS: TWO DISTINCTIONS:
(1) IF SEPARATION IS FOR CAUSE OR (2) NOT FOR
CAUSE
IRR, Rule II, sec. 25; DISTINCTION
Member separated for cause
o Automatically forfeit
o Unless terms of resignation or separation provide otherwise
Member separated not for cause

o Shall continue to be a member and entitled subject to


qualification and other prescription

6. COA DISALLOWANCES
As a general rule, they cannot be deducted except when his
monetary liability contractual or otherwise in favor of gsis
member separated for cause automatically forfeit unless terms
of resignation or separation provide otherwisemember
separated not for cause shall continue to be member and
entitled subject to qualification and other prescription
What is COA disallowances?
Disallowance - the disapproval in audit of a transaction, either
in whole or in part. The term applies to the audit of
disbursements a s distinguished from "charge" which applies to
the audit of revenues/receipts.
The scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate
accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those
for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or
uses of government funds and properties.
Section 4. Audit Disallowances/ Charges/ Suspensions - In the
course of the audit, whenever there are differences arising
from the settlement of accounts by reason of disallowances or
charges,
the
auditor
shall
issue
Notices
of
Disallowances/Charge (ND/NC) which shall issue Notices of
Disallowance/Charge (ND/NC) which shall be considered as
audit decisions, recommendations or dispositions shall be
supported by applicable laws, regulations, jurisprudence and
the generally accepted accounting and auditing principles. The
Auditor may issue Notices of Suspension (NS) for transactions
of doubtful legality/validity/ propriety to obtain further
explanation or documentation.
"SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien
"The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as
the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits
under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment,
execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasijudicial agencies or administrative bodies including
Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all
financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary
accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his
exercise or performance of his official functions or duties, or
incurred relative to or in connection with his position or work
except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is
in favor of the GSIS.
COA disallowances cannot be deducted from retirement
benefits.
GSIS VS COA
The main controversy of whether COA disallowances could be
deducted from retirement benefits because the Board ordered
the dismissal of respondents claim for alleged lack of
jurisdiction, before it could even decide on the principal issue.
The lone issue is whether COA disallowances could be legally
deducted from retirement benefits on the ground that these
were respondents monetary liabilities to the GSIS under the
said provision. There is no dispute that the amounts deducted
by GSIS represented COA disallowances. Thus, the only
question left for the Board to decide is whether the deductions
are allowed under RA 8291.

Provision of law clearly states that no amount whatsoever


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

7. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
"SECTION 28. Prescription. Claims for benefits under this
Act except for life and retirement shall prescribe after four (4)
years from the date of contingency.
When the pensioner dies within the 5-year period after
receiving the five-year lump sum, the survivorship pension
shall be paid only after the end of the said five-year period.
However, filing of claim for survivorship benefit should be done
before the end of the 4-year prescription period

8. GSIS V NLRC
MONEY CLAIMS

SECURITY

GUARDS

GSIS vs. NLRC (important)


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

PEOPLE nagpadungog2 napud balik ang contracting agency


echus sa LABOR. Maygawshhh!!!! Saup baya ko atong
essay!!!!

III.

PORTABILITY LAW
1. WHEN APPLICABLE? WHEN IS TOTALIZATION
RESORTED TO?
With the help of RA 7699, otherwise known as the Portability
Law, government retirees who do not meet the required
number of years provided under PD 1146 and RA 8291 can still
avail of retirement and other benefits.
Under the scheme, you may combine your years of service in
the private sector represented by your contributions to the
Social Security System (SSS) with your government service
and contributions to the GSIS to satisfy the required years of
service under PD 1146 and RA 8291.
However, if you have satisfied the required years of service
under the GSIS retirement option you have chosen, you would
not be allowed to incorporate your contributions to the SSS
anymore for availment of additional benefits.
In case of death, disability and old age, the periods of
creditable services or contributions to the SSS and GSIS shall
be summed up to entitle you to receive the benefits under
either PD 1146 or RA 8291.
If qualified under RA 8291, all the benefits shall apply EXCEPT
the cash payment. The reason for this is that the Portability
Law or RA 7699 provides that only benefits common to both
Systems (GSIS and SSS) shall be paid. Cash payment is NOT
included in the benefits provided by the SSS.
Portability Benefits RA 7699
A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old age
and other benefits by reason of non-fulfillment of the required
period of service may be able to qualify for such benefits by

making use of the period during which he rendered services to


a private employer and for which contributions were paid to
SSS. This is allowed under RA 7699 (approved May 1, 1994)
The Act instituted a limited portability scheme in the
GSIS and SSS by totalizing the workers creditable services or
contributions in each of the Systems.
Portability refers to transfer of funds for the benefit and
account of a worker who transfers from one system to the other
(RA 7699, Sec. 2 [b]).
Totalization refers to the process of adding up the periods of
creditable services or contributions in each of the Systems for
purposes of eligibility and computation of benefits, For
purposes of totalization, overlapping periods of membership
shall be considered once only (Sec. 3)
Overlapping period refers to the period during which a worker
contributes simultaneously to GSIS and SSS.

VI.

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

1. VALERIANO V ECC - COVERAGE FORMULA


"ARISING OUT OF" AND "IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT"; 24-HOUR-DUTY DOCTRINE
2. CAN A CLAIM FOR BENEFIT BE DEFEATED BY
THE MERE FACT OF SEPARATION FROM
SERVICE? (GSIS V CUANANG, AQUINO V SSS,
ETC.)
WALA SA NOTES.

10