Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v Social Security Commission

Facts:

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila filed a request with the SSC that Catholic Churches and all
religious and charitable institutions be exempted from the compulsory coverage of the SSL. They also
allege the constitutionality of the said law.

Petitioners argue that the provisions of Sec 9 SSL is based on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. RCAM then contends that the term employer is defined as those who carry on
"undertakings or activities which have the element of profit or gain, or which are pursued for profit or
gain," because the phrase ,activity of any kind" in the definition is preceded by the words "any trade,
business, industry, undertaking.", it should follow that the priests should not be covered by the SSL

Issue:

WON the Catholic Churches and all religious and charitable institutions are covered by the SSL

Held:

SSL was enacted pursuant to the "policy of the Republic of the Philippines to develop, establish
gradually and perfect a social security system which shall be suitable to the needs of the people
throughout the Philippines and shall provide protection to employees against the hazards of disability,
sickness, old age and death."

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.

The funds contributed to the System created by the law are not public funds, but funds belonging to
the members which are merely held in trust by the Government. At any rate, assuming that said funds
are impressed with the character of public funds, their payment as retirement death or disability
benefits would not constitute a violation of the cited provisions of the Constitution, since such
payment shall be made to the priest not because he is a priest but because he is an employee.

These contributions are not in the nature of taxes on employment." They are intended for the
protection of said employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line with
the constitutional mandate to promote social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of
all the people.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

Philippine Blooming Mills v SSS

Facts:

PBMC, a domestic corporation, has been employing Japanese employees under a pre-arranged
contract of employment for a minimum period of 6 months and a maximum of 24 months.

When it employed 6 Japanese technicians, they sent a letter to SSS inquiring on whether said Japanese
employees should be covered by the compulsory coverage of SSS. SSS replied that said employees are
subject to the compulsory coverage but if they were only temporarily employed, then they shall be
entitled to a rebate of a proportionate amount of their contributions. Their employer shall be entitled
to the same proportionate rebate of their contributions.

After an 18 month employment with the corporation the Japanese nationals employment ended, they
filed -through the Asst. Gen Manager of the corporation- a petition with the SSC for the return/refund
of the premiums.

SSS contends that said return/rebate may only be awarded when the employee has been a member of
the SSS for at least two years. They assailed that the law where the petitioners claim rests upon has
already been amended. And that in the amended law, the employer can no longer be given the rebate
of the premiums.

Issue:

WON the Japanese employees as well as their employer is entitled to the rebate of their contributions
considering that said amendments were made while the employees were still employed but was only
published after their termination

Held:

Under Article 2 of the Civil Code, the date of publication of laws in the Official Gazette is material for
the purpose of determining their effectivity, only if the statutes themselves do not so provide.

In the present case, the original Rules and Regulations of the SSS specifically provide that any
amendment thereto subsequently adopted by the Commission, shall take effect on the date of its
approval by the President. Consequently, the delayed publication of the amended rules in the Official
Gazette did not affect the date of their effectivity, which is January 14, 1958, when they were approved
by the President. It follows that when the Japanese technicians were separated from employment in
October, 1958, the rule governing refund of premiums is Rule IX of the amended Rules and Regulations,
which requires membership for 2 years before such refund of premiums may be allowed.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

Raro v ECC

Facts:

The petitioner states that she was in perfect health when employed as a clerk by the Bureau of Mines
and Geo-Sciences on March 17, 1975. About four years later, she began suffering from severe and
recurrent headaches coupled with blurring of vision. Forced to take sick leaves every now and then,
she sought medical treatment in Manila. She was then a Mining Recorder in the Bureau.

The petitioner was diagnosed at the Makati Medical Center to be suffering from brain tumor. By that
time, her memory, sense of time, vision, and reasoning power had been lost.

A claim for disability benefits filed by her husband with the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) was denied.

Issue:

WON the petitioners condition can be compensated under the ECC

Held:

The "Presumption of compensability" together with the host of decisions interpreting the "arising out
of and in the course of employment" provision of the defunct law has been stricken from the present
law, one has to go into the distinctions between the old workmen's compensation law and the present
scheme. The new law discarded, among others, the concepts of "presumption of compensability" and
"aggravation" and substituted a system based on social security principles

In the present law, it is the trust fund and not the employer which suffers if benefits are paid to
claimants who are not entitled under the law. If diseases not intended by the law to be compensated
are inadvertently or recklessly included, the integrity of the State Insurance Fund is endangered.
Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered by the law ignores the need to show a greater
concern for the trust fund to winch the tens of millions of workers and their families look for
compensation whenever covered accidents, salary and deaths occur.

Since the presumption of compensability was repealed and the petitioner was not able to prove that
her condition was caused by the circumstances of her employment, she cannot claim compensation
under the ECC.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

CMS Estate v SSS

Facts:

CMS estate is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business with 6 employees since Dec.
1952. On June 1956, petitioner obtained a license with the Bureau of Forestry to operate a forest
concession in Baganga, Davao. On Jan. 1957, he employed Eufracio Rojas for the management of the
forest concession. The operation started on April 1957, with 4 monthly salaried employees.

On Aug, 1958 petitioner became a member of the SSS with respect to its real estate business. On Sept
1958, petitioner remitted the monthly salaries of the employees in its logging business. But petitioner
demanded the refund claiming that he is not yet subject to the compulsory coverage with respect to
his logging business. The request was denied on the ground that the logging business was a mere
expansion of petitioner's activities and for purposes of the Social Security Act, petitioner should be
considered a member of the System since December 1, 1952 when it commenced its real estate
business.

Issue:

WON the contributions under the SSA is an exercise of police power or taxing power

WON the compulsory coverage refers to the employer with respect to all of his businesses or refers to
his businesses individually

Held:

The Social Security Law enactment implements the general welfare mandate of the Constitution and
constitutes a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. Membership in the SSS is in
compliance with the lawful exercise of the police power of the State. All that is required of appellant is
to make monthly contributions to the System for covered employees in its employ. These
contributions, contrary to appellant's contention, are not 'in the nature of taxes on employment.'

Sec. 9 of the Act provides that before an employer could be compelled to become a member of the
System, he must have been in operation for at least two years and has at the time of admission at least
six employees. It should be pointed out that it is the employer, either natural, or judicial person, who is
subject to compulsory coverage and not the business. If the intention of the legislature was to consider
every venture of the employer as the basis of a separate coverage, an express provision to that effect
could have been made. Unfortunately, however, none of that sort appeared provided for in the said
law.

The records indubitably show that petitioner started its real estate business on December 1, 1952
while its logging operation was actually commenced on April 1, 1957. Applying the provision of Sec. 10
of the Act, petitioner is subject to compulsory coverage as of December 1, 1952 with respect to the real
estate business and as of April 1, 1957 with respect to its logging operation.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

SSS v COA

Facts:

SSS approved 2 resolutions for the allowances and EME of its members. However, years later, LAO-CGS
of COA issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND).

LAO-CGS did so on the grounds that (1) these were irregular expenditures and (2) the medical
expenses, rice allowances and provident fund were for rank and file employees only.

SSS filed a MR arguing that:

(1) SSS law provides that SSC may adopt a budget expenditure including salaries of personnel against
all funds available to the SSS;
(2) under the same law, SSC is empowered to fix compensation, allowances and other benefits for its
employees and officials;
(3) the compensation structure was in conformity with the COA rulings;
(4) SSL reinforces the fiscal autonomy of the office;
(5) the COA circular regarding the ceilings of benefits covers only GOCCs which SSS is not one of and
(6) SSS benefit scheme is pursuant to law.

COA-LSS denied their MR ruling that SSC was still bound by the provisions of COA Circular 2006-001.
The COA-LSS explained that the said circular was issued to serve as audit guidelines on the
disbursements for EME in GOCCs/GFIs and their subsidiaries, without any distinction whatsoever.

SSS appealed before the COA

COA upheld the disallowance of the disbursements in question. It explained that the SS Law did not
grant an authority to the SSC to fix the compensation, allowances and other benefits of its members.

Aggrieved, the SSS moved for reconsideration of the decision but its motion was denied by the COA

Issue:

WON the members of the SSC are entitled to the EME, medical benefit, rice allowance and the
provident fund

Held:

The nature of the funds possessed by the SSS is crucial in the resolution of the present issue. In SSS v.
COA, the Court expounded that the funds of the SSS were merely held in trust for the benefit of
workers and employees in the private sector

As inferred from the Committee Deliberations, Section 3(a) of the SS Law was passed with the purpose
of providing reasonable compensation to appointive members of the SSC. It was crafted in such a
manner that the specific benefits be laid out so that there would be no need for Congress to later pass a
law providing for additional benefits.

Following the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means the express mention of one
person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others, the COA was correct in disallowing the
disbursements in question as they were not among those enumerated in Section 3(a) of the SS Law.

The SSS cannot rely on Sections 3(c) and 25 of the SS Law either. A harmonious reading of the said
provisions discloses that the SSC may merely fix the compensation, benefits and allowances of SSS
appointive employees within the limits prescribed by the SS Law. Nothing in the aforementioned
provisions authorizes the SSS to grant additional benefits to its members.

In the case at bench need not refund the disallowed amount because they acted in good faith. To
reiterate, good faith may be appreciated because the approving officers were without knowledge of
any circumstance or information which would render the transaction illegal or unconscientious.
Neither could they be deemed to be grossly negligent as they believed that they could disburse the said
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

amounts on the basis of the provisions of the SS Law.

Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

SSS v Davac

Facts:

Petronilo Davac was a member of the SS, his record shows that he designated Candelaria Davac as his
beneficiary and indicated that her relationship with he as that of wife. On April 5, 1959, he died and
Candelaria Davac and Lourdes Tuplano filed claims for death benefit with the SSS.

Apparently, Petronilo contracted 2 marriages, the first one with Lourdes Tuplano and the second with
Candelaria Davac.

The SSC issued a resolution declaring Candelaria as the person entitled to receive the death benefits in
question.

Lourdes is contending that she is the lawful wife of Petronilo Davac and so she has the rightful claim
over his death benefits. She further argues that Art 2012 of the NCC provides: Any person who is
forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life
insurance policy Art. 739. The following donations shall be void: (1) Those made between persons
who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation

Issue:

WON the contributions in SSS form part of the estate of the decease and should therefor be awarded to
his first wife

Held:

Article 739 is not applicable to herein appellee Candelaria Davac because she was not guilty of
concubinage, there being no proof that she had knowledge of the previous marriage of her husband
Petronilo.

The benefits accruing from membership in the Social Security System do not form part of the
properties of the conjugal partnership of the covered member.

The benefit receivable under the Act is in the nature of a special privilege or an arrangement secured
by the law, pursuant to the policy of the State to provide social security to the workingmen. The
amounts that may thus be received cannot be considered as property earned by the member during
his lifetime. His contribution to the fund, it may be noted, constitutes only an insignificant portion
thereof. The benefits under the Social Security Act are not intended by the lawmaking body to form
part of the estate of the covered members.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

Dabatian v GSIS

Facts:

Sigfredo Dabatian was a Garbage Truck Driver in the Gen Services Dept of Cagayan De Oro City. He was
mostly assigned in the night shift, it was gathered from the evidence that he was a heavy coffee drinker
which was his way of warding off sleepiness. Prior to his death, his co-employees noticed that he was
getting paler and weaker at work until he collapsed and became unconscious while on duty.

His widow claimed income benefits under the ECP. GSIS however decided against the compensability
claiming that his ailment, Peptic Ulcer is not definitely accepted as an occupational disease neither was
there showing that the same was directly caused by his employment.

Issue:

WON under the premises the death of Sigfredo A. Dabatian is compensable.

Held:

The records show that petitioner died on July 3, 1976 when the old compensation law had already
been abrogated. No competent evidence whatsoever was submitted to prove that Dabatian's ailment
was contracted prior to January 1, 1975 in order to bring it under the protective mantle of the old
compensation law.

The present Labor Code, P.D. 442 as amended, abolished the presumption of compensability and the
rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of employment, the reason being "to restore a
sensible equilibrium between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's compensation and the
employee's right to receive reparation for work- connected death or disability ... ".

Being a heavy coffee drinker may have aggravated his peptic ulcer, but, aggravation of an illness is no
longer a ground for compensation under the present law.
Sy-Santos (Agra and Social Legislation Law)

Gamogamo v PNOC

Facts:

Petitioner Cayo Gamogamo was employed by the DOH from Jan 1963 to Nov 1977 for a total of 14
years. After which he was hired by LUSTEVECO. PNOC acquired and took over LUSTEVECO and
petitioner was among those who opted to be absorbed by PNOC. PNOC assumed without interruption
petitioners service credit with LUSTEVECO but it did not make reference to nor assumed petitioners
service credits with DOH.

PNOC undergone privatization on June 1993 which resulted to the downsizing of the company. Due to
the privatization, they implemented a program wherein retrenched employees shall receive a
two-month pay for every year of service. Sometime in 1995, petitioner requested to be included in the
next retrenchment schedule but was denied since he was up for mandatory retirement on April 1995.

When PNOC changed their president, the new president approved the retrenchment of two employees.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC for the full payment of his retirement benefits. He alleges
that his years of service with the DOH should be included in his computed retirement benefits and that
he was discriminated in the retrenchment program

Petitioner maintains that his service with DOH should be recognized and tacked to his length of service
with PNOC because LUSTEVECO was bought by PNOC, and PNOC itself was government owned and
controlled corporations and therefore under the Civil Service Law. Prior to the separation of
respondent from Civil Service petitioners service should be considered continuous.

Issue:

WON the totalization of petitioners years of service should be considered since his two former
employment were both government owned

Held:

The Court ruled that since the retirement pay solely comes from PNOCs funds, it is but natural that
they shall disregard petitioners length of service in another company for the computation of his
retirement benefits.

We cannot uphold petitioners contention that his fourteen years of service with the DOH should be
considered because his last two employers were government-owned and controlled corporations, and
fall under the Civil Service Law. Article IX(B), Section 2 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution states :
Sec. 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. It is not
at all disputed that while PNOC and LUSTEVECO are government-owned and controlled corporations,
they have no original charters; hence they are not under the Civil Service Law.

RA 7699 reads: SEC 3. Provisions of any general or special law or rules and regulations to the
contrary notwithstanding, a covered worker who transfer(s) employment from one sector to another
or is employed in both sectors, shall have his creditable services or contributions in both systems
credited to his service or contribution record in each of the Systems and shall be totalized for purposes
of old-age, disability, survivorship, and other benefits in case the covered employee does not qualify
for such benefits in either or both Systems without totalization: Provided, however, That overlapping
periods of membership shall be credited only once for purposes of totalization.

Obviously, totalization of service credits is only resorted to when the retiree does not qualify for
benefits in either or both of the Systems. In any case, petitioners fourteen years of service with the
DOH may not remain uncompensated because it may be recognized by the GSIS pursuant to the
aforequoted Section 12, 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 R.A. No. 7699.