the benefits granted by the Act shall not be subject, among others, to attachment, garnish

ment, levy or other processes. This, however, shall not apply to obligations of the membe
r of the System, or to the employer, or when the benefits granted herein are assigned by t
he member with the authority of the System.

But as the above provision of the Act states, the retirement benefit is not subject to attach
ment, garnishment, levy or other processes that the supplier may ask for.

1988

The facts in this problem will have a bearing on the solution of problem XV. Please keep
the essential facts in mind.

A. Pascual Pasacao was employed as a plumber by the Colossal Construction Corp. in 19

65. He was then single. When he was registered with the SSS, he designated his father J
uan and his mother Maria, who were over 60 and dependent on him for support, as his be
neficiaries. Colossal religiously remitted all employee and company contributions requir
ed by the SSS law.

He married Damiana de Juan in 1967, and also declared her as beneficiary. Even
if he was married, and because he was making a lot of money on overtime, he continued
supporting his parents. A son, Pedrito, was born to the couple in 1968, and a daughter, M
arita, in 1970. He declared both to the SSS as his beneficiaries. In 1975, he was promote
d as foreman to a project in Mountain Province. He stayed there for 2 years and during th
at time, he had a relationship with Juliana Abay, by whom he had a child, Pascualito in 1
976. He signed Pascualitos birth certificate.

Unknown to him, Damiana had an affair while he was away and bore a daughter,
Ariadne, in 1977. She represented to his employer that Ariadne was her child by Pascual
and the personnel clerk of the company reported the child to the SSS as another beneficia
ry. When Pascual returned to Manila, he found out about Ariadne, and sent Damiana awa
y from the conjugal home with the child. She left and lived with Ariadnes natural father.

A Colossal project engineer was around so Pascual had put on his 8-year old safet
y helmet. However, Pascual did not close the chin strap to secure the helmet to his head.
A cable snapped and whiplashed. It missed the engineer by inches and smashed into Pas
cuals helmet. The helmet cracked but the cable did not touch Pascuals head. However,
because of the impact, Pascual lost his balance and fell to the ground. The helmet flew of
f and he hit his head on the pavement. As a result of the injuries that he sustained, he was
paralyzed. While the attending physicians said that there was no hope for his eventual re
covery if he could follow a program of therapy, there was no certainty when that would b
e. Since Pascual was a valued employee. The company wanted to do all it could for him
and his family.

You are counsel of the company. The President of the firm, who has briefed you
on th4e situation in Pascuals family, asks you to help the personnel clerk file a claim for
Pascuals benefits so it could augment the disability pay that the company was paying hi
m. In filling out the form, you find a blank for beneficiaries.

Whom should you write down as beneficiaries? Why?

To what benefits would Pascual be entitled? Explain your answer.

Under what conditions may the SSS suspend the grant of these benefits to Pascual?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
) who are wholly dependent upon Pascual for support.

Damiana, the legal spouse is not dependent because she is not living with Pascual
and could therefore be considered as not dependent for support on Pascual.

(b) The primary and secondary beneficiaries of Pascual, if he is covered by GSIS,

except that Pascualito, the illegitimate child, will be a primary beneficiary and not just s
econdary beneficiary.

1989

Sapatilya Company, a manufacturer of wooden shoes, started its operations on January 1,

1989. As of June 15, 1989, the company had in its payroll a general manager, an assistant
general manager, three supervisors and forty rank and file employees, all of whom starte
d with the company on January 1, 1989. On July 1, 1989, the company also had ten casua

B. Is it necessary for an employee to litigate in order to establish and enforce his right to
compensation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. All that an employee does to claim employee's compensation is to file a claim for sai
d benefits with the SSS (for those in the private sector) or GSIS (for those in the public se
ctor).

In the event that the claim is denied on the SSS/GSIS level, claimant may appeal to the E
mployees Compensation Commission where he may prove the causal connection between
injury and nature of work.

1996

1997

State the respective coverages of {a} the Social Security Law: (b) the Revised govern
ment Service Insurance Act and (c) the Employees Compensation Act.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Coverage of SSS (Sec. 9. RA 8282) shall be compulsory upon all employees not
over sixty years of age and their employers. Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by fore
ignbased employers for employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary
basis. Coverage in the SSS shall also be compulsory upon all self-employed persons e
arning P1,800 or more per annum.

(b) Membership in the Government Service Insurance System (Art. 3, RA8291) shall
be compulsory for all permanent employees below 60 years of age upon appointment to
permanent status, and for all elective officials for the duration of their tenure. Any per
son, whether elected or appointed, in the service of an employer is a covered employee
if he receives compensation for such service.

(c) Coverage in the State Insurance Fund (Art, 168, Labor Code) shall be compulsory
upon all employers and their employees not over sixty (60) years of age; Provided, th
at an employee who is over (60) years of age and paying contributions to qualify for the
retirement or life insurance benefit administered by the System shall be subject to com
pulsory coverage. The Employees Compensation Commission shall ensure adequate cov
erage of Filipino employees employed abroad, subject to regulations as it may prescrib
e. (Art, 170} Any person compulsorily covered by the GSIS including the members of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and any person employed as casual, emergency, te
mporary, substitute or contractual, or any person compulsorily covered by the SSS are c
overed by the Employees Compensation Program.

1998

1999

Marvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying services for the members and guests of
the Barili Golf & Country Club. As such caddy, he is subject to Barili golfs rules and reg
ulations governing Caddies regarding conduct, dress, language, etc. However, he does not
have to observe any working hours, he is free to leave anytime he pleases; and he can sta
y away for as long as he likes. Nonetheless, if he is found remiss in the observance of clu
b rules, he can be disciplined by being barred from the premises of Barili Golf.

Is Marvin within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Because he is not an employee of the Barili Golf & Country Club, Marvin is not within th
e compulsory coverage of the Social Security System. Marvin is not an employee of the c
lub because under the specific circumstances of his relations with the club, he is not unde
r the orders of the club as regards employment which would have made him an employee
of the club. (See Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. IAC, 237 SCRA 207)

But Marvin is within the compulsory coverage of the SSS as a self-employed person. (Se
e Section 9-A, Social Security Law of 1957)

2000

The Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Golden Corporation Inc. and the Golden Co
rporation Workers Union provides a package of welfare benefits far superior in comparis
on with those provided for in the Social Security Act of 1997. The welfare plan of the co
mpany is funded solely by the employer with no contributions from the employees. Admi
ttedly, it is the best welfare plan in the Philippines. The company and the union jointly fil
ed a petition with the Social Security System for exemption from coverage. Will the petiti
on for exemption from coverage prosper? Reason. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because coverage under the SSS is compulsory where employer-employee relations e
xist. However, if the private plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may be integrated
with the SSS plan. Still, it is integration and not exemption from SSS law. (Philippine Bl
ooming Mills Co., Inc. v. Social Security System, 17 SCRA 107(1966); RA. No. 1161 as
amended by RA No. 8282}.

2001

In 1960, Juan hired Pablo to drive for the former's lumber company. In 1970, Pablo got si
ck and was temporarily laid-off. In 1972, Pablo recovered and resumed working for the s
ame lumber company, now run by Juan's wife since Juan had already passed away. In 19
96, Pablo retired. When Pablo applied for retirement benefits with the SSS that same year
, he discovered that the lumber company never enrolled him as an employee, much less re
mitted his contributions that were deducted from his salary. The lumber company agreed
to pay for Pablo's contributions plus penalties but maintained that most of Pablo's claims
had already prescribed under Art, 1150 of the Civil Code. (Art. 1150 provides "The time
for prescription of all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains o
therwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought."). Is the Lumber Company

2004

Atty. CLM, a dedicated and efficient public official, was the top executive of a governme
nt owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). While inspecting an ongoing project in a r
emote village in Mindanao, she suffered a stroke and since then had been confined to a w
heelchair. At the time she stopped working because of her illness in line of duty, Atty. CL
M was only sixty years old but she had been an active member of the GSIS for thirty year
s without any break in her service record. What benefits could she claim from the GSIS?
Cite at least five benefits. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The benefits Atty. CLM could claim from the GSIS are:
(1) Employees compensation which shall include both income and medical and related be
nefits, including rehabilitation;
(2) Temporary total disability benefit;
(3) Permanent total disability benefit;
(4) Separation benefit; and
(5) Retirement benefit.

2005

How are the "portability" provisions of Republic Act No. 7699 beneficial or advantageou
s to SSS and GSIS members in terms of their creditable employment services in the priva
te sector or the government, as the case may be, for purposes of death, disability or retire
ment? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Portability provisions of R.A. No. 7699 shall benefit a covered worker who transfers emp
loyment from one sector to another or is employed in both sectors, whose creditable servi
ces or contributions in both systems credited to his service or contribution record in each
of the system and shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability, survivorship and o

B. Luisa is an unwed mother with 3 children from different fathers. In 2004, she became
a member of the Social Security System (SSS). That same year, she suffered a miscarriag
e of a baby out of wedlock from the father of her third child. She wants to claim maternit
y benefits under the SSS Act. Is she entitled to claim? (2015 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes.
Provided Luisa has reported to her employer her pregnancy and date of expected
delivery and paid at least three monthly contributions during the 12-month period immedi
ately preceding her miscarriage then she is entitled to maternity benefits up to four delive
ries. As to the fact that she got pregnant outside wedlock, as in her past three pregnancies
, this will not bar her claim because the SSS is non-discriminatory.