IMMACULADA L.

GARCIA,
Petitioner,

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION LEGAL

AND COLLECTION, SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM
Respondents.
GR No. 170735, 2007
Facts of the Case
Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia, Eduardo de Leon,
Ricardo de Leon, Pacita Fernandez, and Consuelo
Villanueva were directors of Impact Corporation.
The corporation was engaged in the business of
manufacturing aluminum tube containers and operated
two factories.
Records show that around 1978, Impact Corporation
started encountering financial problems. By 1980,
 The Ministry of Labor, noted
the inability of Impact
Corporation to pay wages, 13th
month pay, and SSS
remittances due to cash
liquidity problems. A portion of
the order reads:
On the claims of unpaid wages,
unpaid 13th month pay and non-
remittance of loan amortization and
Issue
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.
RULING
Yes. Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia,
as sole surviving director of Impact
Corporation is hereby ORDERED to
pay for the collected and unremitted
SSS contributions of Impact
Corporation.
Section 28(f) of the Social Security
Law imposes a civil liability for any act
or omission pertaining to the violation
 Republic of the Philippines
represented by the Social Security
System v. Asiapro Cooperative

(G.R. No. 172101)

 Facts:
Respondent Asiapro Cooperative is composed of owners-members
with primary objectives of providing them savings and credit facilities
and livelihood services. In discharge of said objectives, Asiapro
entered into several service contracts with Stanfilco. Sometime later,
the cooperative owners-members requested Stanfilcos help in
registering them with SSS and remitting their contributions.
 Petitioner SSS informed Asiapro that being actually a manpower
contractor supplying employees to Stanfilco, it must be the one to
register itself with SSS as an employer and remit the contributions.
Respondent continuously ignoring the demand of SSS the latter filed
before the SSC. Asiapro alleges that there exists no employer-
employee relationship between it and its owners-members. SSC ruled
in favor of SSS. On appeal, CA reversed the decision.
 Issue:
Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between
Asiapro and its owners-members.
 Ruling: YES.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever
means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
workers conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall
consideration. All the aforesaid elements are present in this case.
 First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the
respondent cooperative which has the exclusive discretion in the
selection and engagement of the owners-members as well as its team
leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco.
Second. It cannot be doubted then that those stipends or shares in
the service surplus are indeed wages, because these are given to the
owners-members as compensation in rendering services to
respondent cooperatives client, Stanfilco.
 Third. It is also stated in the above-mentioned Service Contracts that
it is the respondent cooperative which has the power to investigate,
discipline and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who
were rendering services at Stanfilco.
Fourth. In the case at bar, it is the respondent cooperative which has
the sole control over the manner and means of performing the
services under the Service Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the
means and methods of work. Also, the respondent cooperative is
solely and entirely responsible for its owners-members, team leaders
and other representatives at Stanfilco. All these clearly prove that,
indeed, there is an employer-employee relationship between the
respondent cooperative and its owners-members.