AGRARIAN
HISTORY OF SSS investments, stiffer penalties for violators of the law, condonation of penalties
INTRODUCTION
The concept of social security 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.
The system establishes a program which relieves financial want by restoring
income lost through inability to work due to death, old age sickness,
pregnancy or disability.
So workers are protected from anxieties arising out of contingencies.
But another phenomenon has aroused a deep anxiety for working class
globalization (i.e., cost-cutting, productivity, enhancement, downsizing of
personnel, termination of jobs.
WHY SOCIAL LEGISLATION?
A form of social security: to insure the well-being and economic security of the
people.
A form of social insurance: membership is mandatory as a rule requiring the
shared payment of contributions and contributions will pay for benefits and
operating costs.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On Jan. 26, 1948, Pres. Manuel A. Roxas proposed a bill seeking to establish a
social security system for wage earners and low-salaried employees. This was
recommended to Congress in his State of the Nation Address.
After the death of President Roxas, Pres. Elpidio Quirino created the Social
Security Study Commission on July 7, 1948. The creation of the Commission
was his first official act upon his assumption to office. Based on the report of
the Study Commission, a draft of the Social Security Act was submitted to
Congress.
In 1954, Rep. Floro Crisologo, Senators Cipriano Primicias and Manuel Briones
introduced bills based on the report of the Social Security Study Commission
in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. These bills were
consolidated and enacted into Republic Act (RA) 1161, better known as the
Social Security Act of 1954.
However, business and labor groups objected to the Social Security Act
resulting in a deferment of its implementation.
In 1957, amendatory bills were presented in Congress. These bills were the
bases of RA 1792, which amended the original Social Security Act (i.e., pilot
plan deleted, concept of integration was introduced [existing private benefit
plan}
On Sep. 1, 1957, the Social Security Act of 1954 or the Social Security Law (SS
Law) was finally implemented, marking a significant milestone in the social
security program.
Thus, with the implementation of the SS law, the government also adopted
the social insurance approach to social security, covering the employed
segment of the labor force in the private sector. In 1993, household helpers
earning at least P1,000 were included in the compulsory coverage of
employees.
In 1980, some groups of self-employed persons were also required to
contribute to the social security fund from which benefits are paid upon the
occurrence of a contingency provided by law. Self-employed farmers and
fisherfolks were included in the program in 1992, while workers in the informal
sector earning at least P1,000 a month such as ambulant vendors and watch-
your-car boys, were covered in 1995.
The Social Security System (SSS) administers social security protection to
workers in the private sector. On the other hand, the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) takes care of workers in the public sector.
The SSS administers two programs namely:
1. The Social Security Program; and
2. The Employees Compensation Program (EC).
Social Security provides replacement income for workers in times of death,
disability, sickness, maternity and old age.
On May 1, 1997, Pres. Fidel V. Ramos signed RA 8282, further strengthening
the SSS. Also known as the Social Security Act of 1997, it amended RA 1161,
providing for better benefit packages, expansion of coverage, flexibility of
of delinquent employers and the establishment of a voluntary provident fund
for members.
The EC program, started in 1975, provides double compensation effective June
1984 to the worker when the illness, death, or accident occurs during work-
related activities. EC benefits are granted only to members with employers
other than themselves.
SSS used to administer the Medicare program for hospitalization and other
medical needs of the private sector workers; and the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), for the public sector workers. However, with the
passage of Republic Act 7875 or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995, the
SSS and GSIS transferred the administration of the Medicare program to the
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) for an integrated and
comprehensive approach to health development effective July 1999.
SSS retirement, death, and total disability pensioners prior to the effectivity of
RA 7875 on March 4, 1995 are entitled to hospitalization benefits under Phil-
Health. Pensioners upon the effectivity of RA 7875 on March 4, 1995 and
thereafter are no longer covered except when they meet the qualification
requirements set by Phil-Health.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (RA 8282)
POLICY
It is the policy of the State to establish, develop, promote and perfect a
sound and viable tax-exempt social security system suitable to the needs of
the people throughout the Philippines which shall promote social justice and
provide meaningful protection to members and their families against the
hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old-age, death and other
contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden. (Sec. 2, RA
8282)
EFFECTIVITY
May 24, 1997
VISION
Viable protection through generations.
Universal protection provided to all residents of the Philippines, citizens and
non-citizens alike, regardless of creed, gender, age, geographic location and
economic status, especially the disadvantaged.
Equitable - fair and uniform coverage to all; benefits shall be meaningful and
able to sustain a decent standard of living.
World-class service - prompt, accurate and courteous service shall be
provided.
JURISDICTION
SEC. 5. Settlement of Disputes (a) Any dispute arising under this Act with
respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any
other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by the commission, and any
case filed with respect thereto shall be heard by the Commission, or any of its
members, or by hearing officers duly authorized by the Commission and
decided within twenty (20) days after the submission of the evidence. The
filing, determination and settlement of disputes shall be governed by the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission. (RA 8282)
CASE: SSS vs. Atlantic Gulf
Atlantic Gulf, et al. filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against SSS before the RTC of Batangas City.
From the averments in the complaint, private respondents are seeking to
implement the Deed of Assignment which they had drafted and submitted to
SSS sometimes 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, amounted to P29,261,902.45.
RTC dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction upon motion of SSS citing Sec.
5 of RA 8282;
CA reversed the RTC and held that the subject of the complaint is no longer
that payment of the premium and loan amortization delinquencies, as well as
the penalties appurtenant thereto, but the enforcement of the dacion en pago
pursuant to SSS Resolution No. 270. The application then is one for specific
performance which case law holds is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
 AGRARIAN
Which body has jurisdiction to entertain a 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 any dispute with respect to respondents accountability to the SSS.
Respondents 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. 270-s. 2001
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
_____________.
CASE: Republic vs. Asiapro Cooperative
Respondent Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members. Its
primary objectives are to provide savings and credit facilities and to develop
other livelihood services for its owners-members.
In the discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives, respondent cooperative
entered into several Service Contracts with Stanfilco a division of DOLE
Philippines, Inc. and a company based in Bukidnon. The owners-members do
not receive compensation or wages from the respondent cooperative. Instead,
they receive a share in the service surplus which the respondent 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 surplus generated by the quality and amount of
services they rendered, which is determined by the Board of Directors of the
respondent cooperative.
In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997, the
owners-members of the respondent cooperative, who were assigned to
Stanfilco requested the services of the latter to register them with petitioner
SSS as self-employed and to remit their contributions as such.
SSS sent a letter to Asiapro that based on the Service Contracts it executed
with Stanfilco, respondent cooperative is actually a manpower contractor
supplying employees to Stanfilco and for that reason, it is an employer of its
owners-members working with Stanfilco. Thus, respondent cooperative
should register itself with petitioner SSS as an employer and make the
corresponding report and remittance of premium contributions in accordance
with the Social Security Law
Who should determine e-e?
Since the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
the respondent cooperative 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 employer-employee relationship that exists between the
respondent cooperative and its owners-members.
The question on the existence of an employer-employee relationship is not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). Article 217 of the Labor Code enumerating the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters and the NLRC provides that:
ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION. (a) .
...
xxx xxx xxx
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-
employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
Although the aforesaid provision speaks merely of claims for Social Security, 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 an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of
determining the coverage of the Social Security System is explicitly excluded
from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and falls within the jurisdiction of the SSC
which is primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising under the
Social Security Law of 1997.
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 worker's conduct, with the latter
assuming primacy in the overall consideration. The most important element is
the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish.
All 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. The weekly stipends or the so-called shares 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 existing 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 shares in the service surplus are indeed wages, because these are given to
the owners-members as compensation in rendering services to respondent
cooperative's 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. 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.
CASE: SSS vs. Bailon
Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice) contracted
marriage in Barcelona, Sorsogon.
More than 15 years later, Bailon filed before the then Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon a petition to declare Alice presumptively
dead.
By Order, the CFI granted the petition.
Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared presumptively
dead, Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque
(respondent) in Casiguran, Sorsogon.
Bailon, who was a member of the Social Security System (SSS) since
1960 and a retiree pensioner thereof, died.
Respondent thereupon filed a claim for funeral benefits, and was
granted P12,000 by the SSS
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia), who claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and one
Elisa Jayona (Elisa) contested before the SSS the release to respondent of the
death and funeral benefits. She claimed that Bailon contracted three
marriages in his lifetime, the first with Alice, the second with her mother Elisa,
and the third with respondent, all of whom are still alive; she, together with
her siblings, paid for Bailon's medical and funeral expenses; and all the
documents submitted by respondent to the SSS in support of her claims are
spurious
SSS cancelled the pension.
Respondent protested asserting that her marriage with Bailon was not
declared before any court of justice as bigamous or unlawful, hence, it
remained valid and subsisting for all legal intents and purposes as in fact Bailon
designated her as his beneficiary.
When raised to SSC, it held that Teresita Jarque-Bailon is not the legitimate
spouse and primary beneficiary of SSS member Clemente Bailon.
Marriage governed by the NCC.
Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage being voidable, it is terminated
by final judgement of annulment in a case instituted by the absent spouse who
reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage.
If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent
marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such absentees mere
reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in the subsequent
marriage, will not terminate such marriage. Since the second marriage has
been contracted because of a presumption that the former spouse is dead,
such presumption continues inspite of the spouses physical reappearance,
and by force of law, he or she must still be regarded as legally an absentee
until the subsequent marriage is terminated as provided by law.
SC:
That the SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to
SSS coverage, benefits and contributions, there is no doubt. In so
exercising such power, however, it cannot review, much less
reverse, decisions rendered by courts of law as it did in the case at
 AGRARIAN
bar when it declared that the December 10, 1970 CFI Order was
obtained through fraud and subsequently disregarded the same,
making its own findings with respect to the validity of Bailon and
Alice's marriage on the one hand and the invalidity of Bailon and
respondent's marriage on the other.
In interfering with and passing upon the CFI Order, the SSC virtually
acted as an appellate court. The law does not give the SSC
unfettered discretion to trifle with orders of regular courts in the
exercise of its authority to determine the beneficiaries of the SSS.
In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with law,
Bailon's and respondent's marriage prior to the former's death in 1998,
respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon.
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.
Court Review The decision of the Commission upon any disputed matter mat
be reviewed both upon the law and the facts by the Court of Appeals. For the
purpose of such review, the procedure corcerning 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. [RA 8282,
Sec. 5C]
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.
Criminal offenses for violations of the SS law are within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
Section 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 the Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.
Who has jurisdiction on criminal violations?
According to SSS, it has the option to file a criminal case either
before the SSC or regular court citing Section 28 (i) but there is a
directive that criminal cases be filed before the regular courts;
Section 5 says about a dispute arising under this Act with respect
to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any
other matter related thereto under SSC.
The Revised Rules of SSC (1997) does not define a dispute.
A criminal violation is not within SSC.
BP Blg. 129 says:
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body.
Except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the law.
Is the consent of SSS required before any criminal case may be filed?
No, because Section 28 (i) states that a Criminal action
arising from a violation of the provision 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 xxx.
Who is an employer under SS Law?
(c ) Employer Any person, natural or juridical, domestic or
foreign, who carries on 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. Provided, That a self-
employed person shall be both employee and employer at the
same time. (RA 8282, Sec. 8)
CASE: SSC v. Alba
Whether an administrator could be considered an employer? Yes.
Far Alba was no ordinary administrator. He was no less than the
son of the hacienda's owner and as such he was an owner-in-
waiting prior to his father's death.
Essential elements of e-e relationship are present. Lamboso
testified that he was selected and his services were engaged by Far
Alba himself. Corollarily, Far Alba held the prerogative of
terminating Lamboso's employment. Lamboso also testified in a
direct manner that he had been paid his wages by Far Alba. This
testimony was seconded by Lamboso's co-worker.
Not to be forgotten is the definition of an employer under Article
167 (f) of the Labor Code which deals with employees'
compensation and state insurance fund. It defines a person as "any
individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, corporation or legal
representative thereof". Plainly, Far Alba, as the hacienda
administrator, acts as the legal representative of the employer and
is thus an employer within the meaning of the law liable to pay the
SS contributions.
Section 8 (c ) of the Social Security Act of 1954 is broad enough to
include those persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest
of the employer. If under Article 212 (e), persons acting in the
interest of the employer, directly or indirectly, are obliged to follow
the government labor relations policy, it could be reasonably
concluded that such persons may likewise be held liable for the
remittance of SS contributions which is an obligation created by law
and an employees right is protected by law.
Who is an employee under SS Law?
(d) Employee Any person who performs services for an
employer in which either or both mental or physical efforts are used and who
receives compensation for such services, where there is an employer-
employee relationship: Provided, That a self-employed person shall be both
employee and employer at the same time. (RA 8282, Sec. 8)
Employment services excluded
1. Purely casual employment and not for the purpose of occupation
or business of the employer
2. Services performed or in connection with an alien vessel by an
employee if he/she is employed when such vessel is outside the
Philippines
3. Services performed in the employ of the Philippine government
4. Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or
international organization, or their wholly-owned instrumentality
unless there is an agreement with the Philippine Government for
the inclusion of such employees in the SSS
5. Such other temporary services performed by temporary employees
which may be excluded by regulation. Employees of bona fide
independent contractors shall not be deemed employees of the
employer engaging the service of said contractors.
 AGRARIAN
CASE: SSS v. CA
Compulsory Coverage
Whether or not an agricultural laborer who was hired on "pakyaw"
basis can be considered an employee entitled to compulsory Coverage of Employees
coverage and corresponding benefits under the Social Security a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old
b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is covered
Law.
starting Sept. 1, 1993.
SC: A household-helper is any person who renders domestic
There was no shred of evidence to show that Tana was only a or household services exclusively to a household
seasonal worker. All witnesses, including Ayalde, testified that Tana employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and
and his family resided in the plantation. The only logical other similar occupations.
explanation for this set up was that Tana was working for most part c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard contract or
of the year exclusively for Ayalde. A closer scrutiny of the records employment between the seafarer and the manning
revealed that while Ayalde may not have directly imposed on Tana agency which, together with the foreign ship owner, act as
the manner and methods to follow in performing his tasks, she did employers.
exercise control through her overseer. Under the circumstances, d. An employee of a foreign government, international
the relationship between Ayalde and Tana has more of the organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality based in the
attributes of employer-employee than that of an independent Philippines, which entered into an administrative agreement with
contractor hired to perform a specific project. the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino workers.
CASE: Lazaro v. SSC Are laborers continuously assigned to construction projects as carpenters,
masons, etc. compulsorily covered under SS Law?
Private respondent Laudato filed a petition before SSC for
social security coverage and remittance of unpaid monthly CASE: Chua v. CA, et al., GR no. 125837, Oct. 6, 2004:
social security contributions against her there employers.
Among the respondents was herein petitioner, proprietor of
Royal Star Marketing (Royal Star). Petitioner alleged that
The mandatory coverage of RA 1161, as amended, is
Laudata was a mere sales agent whom he paid purely on
premised on the existence of an employer-employee
commission basis and was not subjected to definite hours and
relationship.
conditions of work. As such, Laudato could not be deemed an
Private respondents are employees of petitioner, the latter
employee of Royal Star. Applying the control test, the SSC
having control over the results of the work done, as well as
held that Laudato was an employee of Royal Star, and hence
the means and methods by which the same were
entitled to coverage under the Social Security Law. The SSC
accomplished.
decision was affirmed by CA. Hence, this petition.
Xxx regardless of the nature of their employment, whether
Is a sales supervisor of a company engaged in the sale of
it is regular or project, private respondents are subject of the
home appliances an employee of such company?
compulsory coverage under the SSS Law, their employment
SC found that Laudato was a sales supervisor and not a mere
not falling under the exceptions provided by the law. This rule
sales agent. As such, Laudato oversaw and supervised the
is in accord with the Courts ruling in Luzon Stevedoring Corp.
sales agents of the company, and thus was subject to the
v. SSS to the effect that all employees, regardless of tenure,
control of management as to how she implements its policies
would qualify for compulsory membership in the SSS except
and its end results. SC disinclined to reverse this finding, in
those classes of employees contemplated in Section 8(j) of
the absence of countervailing evidence from Lazaro and also
the Social Security Act.
in light of the fact that Laudato's calling cards from Royal Star
Despite the insistence of petitioner that they were project
indicate that she is indeed a sales supervisor.
employees, the facts show that as masons, carpenters and
The court also held that the fact that Laudato was paid by way
fine graders in petitioners various construction projects, they
of commission does not preclude the establishment of an
performed work which was usually necessary and desirable
employer-employee relationship. Neither does it follow that
to petitioners business which involves construction of roads
a person who does not observe normal hours of work cannot
and bridges.
be deemed an employee.
While it may be true that private respondents were initially
hired for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated re-
Final judgment on relationship/conclusive judgement
hiring and continuing need for their services over a long span
of time the shortest being two years and the longest being
A final and executor NLRC decision (to the effect that
eight have undeniably made them regular employees. This
respondent spouses were not the employees of petitioner)
Court has held that an employment ceases to be co-terminus
was binding on the criminal case for violation of RA 1161, as
with specific projects when the employee is continuously
amended.
rehired due to the demands of the employers business and
re-engaged for many more projects without interruption.
CASE: Co. v. People
Coverage of Employers
Petitioner was charged criminally by claimed employees for
a. An employer, or any person who uses the services of another
violation of SS Law for non-remittance of contributions.
person in business, trade, industry or any undertaking.
Prior to criminal case, a final decision of NLRC held that the claimed
employees were independent contractors and not employees.
A social, civil, professional, charitable and other non-profit
Petitioner filed a motion to quash.
organization which hire the services of employees are
SC:
considerable employers.
The mandatory coverage of RA 1161, as amended, is premised on
b. A foreign government, international organization or its
the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
wholly-owned instrumentality such as embassy in the
The final executor NLRC decision (to the effect that respondent
Philippines, may enter into an administrative agreement with
spouses were not the employees of petitioner) was binding on this
the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino employees.
criminal case for violation of RA 1161, as amended. Accordingly,
the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to
Coverage of Self-Employed Persons
grant petitioners motion to quash the information.
A self-employed person, regardless of trade, business or
CASE: SSC v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc., et al.,
occupation, with an income of at least P1,000 a month and not over
(GR no. 167050, June 1, 2011)
60 years old, should register with the SSS. Included but not limited
to are the following self-employed persons: self-employed
Issue:
professionals; business partners, single proprietors and board
Whether res judicata applies so as to preclude the SSC from
directors; actors, actresses, directors, scriptwriters and news
resolving anew the existence of employer-employee relationship,
correspondents who do not fall with the term employee;
which issue was previously determined in the NLRC case?
professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys; farmers and
fisherfolks; and workers in the informal sector such cigarette
SC:
vendors, watch-your-car-boys, hospitality girls, among others.
Res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment
applies. The judgment in the NLRC case pertaining to a finding of
Voluntary Coverage
an absence of employer-employee relationship between Angeles
and respondents is conclusive on the SSC case.
Coverage of Separated Members
 AGRARIAN
A member who is separated from employment or ceased to be self-
employed/OFW/non-working spouse and would like to continue
paying his/her contributions.
Coverage of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)
A Filipino recruited in the Philippines by a foreign-based employer
for employment abroad; having a source of income in the foreign
country; and permanent resident in a foreign country.
Coverage of non-working Spouse of SSS Members
A person legally married to a currently employed and actively
paying SSS member who devotes full time in the management of
household and family affairs may be covered on a voluntary basis
provided there is approval of the working spouse. The person
should never have been a member of the SSS. The contributions
will be based on 50% of the working spouses last posted monthly
salary credit but in no case shall it be lower than P1,000.
Effectively of Coverage
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.
Voluntary coverage
1. For OFW upon first payment of contribution, in case of initial
coverage.
2. For non-working spouse upon first payment of contribution.
3. For separated member on the month the person resumed
payment of contribution.
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.
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. (RA 8282, Sec. 8 [K])
Dependents
(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the
member;
(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate
child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, and has not
reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over twenty-one (21)
years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support,
physically or mentally; and
(3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member.
(RA 8282, Sec. 8[e])
Employment services excluded
1. Purely casual employment and not for the purpose of occupation
or business of the employer
2. Services performed or in connection with an alien vessel by an
employee if he/she is employed when such vessel is outside the
Philippines
3. Services performed in the employ of the Philippine government
4. Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or
international organization, or their wholly-owned instrumentality
unless there is an agreement with the Philippine Government for
the inclusion of such employees in the SSS
5. Such other temporary services performed by temporary employees
which may be excluded by regulation. Employees of bona fide
independent contractors shall not be deemed employees of the
employer engaging the service of said contractors.
Duties of employee-members
Among others:
Secure SS number
Ensure they are reported for coverage by their employers
Pay their monthly share.
Duties of employer-members
Among others:
Require presentation of SS number of prospective employee
Report all employees for SS coverage within 30 days from date of
employment
Deduct from the employees the monthly SS contributions based on
schedule of contributions; pat their share of contributions including
Employees Compensation and remit these contributions to SSS or
accredited banks within first 10 calendar days following the month
when said contributions are due and applicable
Submit a summary of all contributions
Issue official receipts and maintain official records of employment
and deductions
Remit to SSS all salary, educational, stocks investment or
privatization loan amortization of their employees and submit a
form
Submit a summary of all employees loan amortization
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
Benefits under social security program
Covered employees are entitled to a package of benefits under
social security and EC in the event of death, disability, sickness,
maternity, and old-age
Self-employed and voluntary members also get same benefits
except those benefits under the EC program
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 12-month 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.
For example: SSS member gets sick in October 2006 for 20 days.
a. The semester of sickness would be from July 2006 to December
2006.
b. The 12-month period would be from July 2005 to June 2006 (where
the six highest monthly salary credits will be chosen).
3. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and
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 or member got
sick while working or within company premises.
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.
Effect of failure or delay in notification
If employee notifies beyond period, confinement shall be deemed
to have started not earlier than the fifth day.
If employer notifies beyond period, employer shall be reimbursed
only for each day of confinement starting from the 10th calendar
day immediately preceding the date of notification to SSS.
If employee notified the employer but the latter failed to notify
SSS, employer shall have no right to recover the daily sickness
allowance advanced.
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member confined in hospital/home:
 AGRARIAN
1. For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed within 1 year from last
day of confinement; Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under the Social Security
2. For home, 1 year from start of illness. Law for benefits are not the same as to their nature and purpose.
Failure to file the claim within the prescribed period will result to
denial of claim. On the one hand, the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code govern
compensability of work-related disabilities or when there is loss of income
Maternity Benefit due to work-connected or work-aggravated injury or illness.

It is a daily cash allowance granted to female member who was
unable to work due to childbirth or miscarriage.
It is equivalent to 100% of members average daily salary credit
multiplied by 60 days for normal delivery pr miscarriage, 78 days
for caesarian section delivery.
Deliveries covered:
Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages shall be paid
starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)
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.
Qualifications for entitlement:
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.
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.
Is monthly pension for life?
The member who suffers from permanent total disability shall
receive monthly pension for life. However, the said monthly pension shall be
suspended: (1) if he recovers from his permanent total disability; (2) if he
resumes employment; (3) if he fails to report for annual physical exam upon
notice by SSS. Domiciliary service (if member is unable to report to SSS for
exam) can be requested.
The member who suffers from permanent partial disability shall receive his
monthly pension for the duration of a certain number of months assessed
based on the degree of his disability.
Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim:

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:
Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages shall be paid
starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)
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.
Disability Benefit
Disability any restriction or lack (resulting from impairment) of ability to
perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a
human being (adopting the definition of disability by World Health
Organization)
Impairment any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or
anatomical structure or function.
10 years from the date of occurrence of disability.
Retirement Benefit
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum paid to a member
who can no longer work due to old age.
Who may qualify?
1. A member who is 60 years old, separated from employment or
ceased to be self-employed, and has paid at least 120 monthly
contributions prior to the semester of retirement.
2. A member who is 65 years old whether employed or not and has
paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the semester of
retirement.
CASE: Dycaico v. SSS
Bonifacio S. Dycaico, member of the SSS, In his self-employed data
record, he named the petitioner, Elena P. Dycaico, and their eight
children as his beneficiaries. At that time, Bonifacio and Elena lived
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
In June 1989, Bonifacio was considered retired and began receiving
his monthly pension from the SSS. He continued to receive the
monthly pension until he passed away on June 19, 1997. A few
months prior to his death, however, Bonifacio married the
petitioner on January 6, 1997.
Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary
beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to
receive the monthly pension. . . .

Who is qualified? SC:

The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of
A member who suffers partial or total permanent disability with at Rep. Act No. 8282, which qualifies the term "primary beneficiaries," is
least one monthly contribution paid to the SSS prior to the semester of unconstitutional for it violates the due process and equal protection
contingency. clauses of the Constitution.

Some partial permanent disabilities: Equal protection:

one thumb one big toe Results in the classification of dependent spouses as primary
one index finger one hand beneficiaries into two groups:
one middle finger one arm (1) Those dependent spouses whose respective marriages
one ring finger one foot to SSS members were contracted prior to the latter's retirement;
one little finger one leg and
hearing of one ear one ear (2) Those dependent spouses whose respective marriages
hearing of both ears both ears to SSS members were contracted after the latter's retirement.
sight of one eye
Some total permanent disabilities: When may underground mineworkers qualify for retirement benefit?
1. Complete loss of sight of both eyes
2. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankles or wrists 1. Has reached the age of 55 years old and is an underground mineworker for
3. Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs at least 5 years (either continuous or accumulated) prior to the semester of
4. Brain injury resulting to incurable imbecility or insanity retirement but whose actual date of retirement is not earlier than March 13,
5. Such cases as determined and approved by SSS 1998; separated from employment or in the case of self-employed, has ceased
self-employment, and has paid at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the
CASE: Ortega v. SSC semester of retirement.
 AGRARIAN
2. has reached the age of 60 years old whether employed or not and has paid
at least 120 monthly contributions prior to the semester of retirement.
Types of retirement benefits:
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
Aside from retirement benefit, retiree is entitled to a 13th month pension
payable every December. All retiree pensioners prior to effectivity of RA 7875
on March 4, 1995 are automatically considered members of PhilHealth and he
and his legal dependents are entitled to its hospitalization benefits.
Death Benefit
It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum paid to the
beneficiaries of a deceased member.
Types of death benefit:
1. Monthly pension
2. Lump sum amount
Beneficiaries:
Primary: (1) Legitimate dependent spouse until the person
remarries; (2) dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted
and illegitimate children who are not yet 21 years old.
Secondary: In the absence of primary, dependent parents.
In their absence, any other person designated by member in
record.
CASE: Signey v. SSS
Who is entitled to the social security benefits of a Social Security System (SSS)
member who was survived not only by his legal wife, but also by two common-
law wives with whom he had six children?
In the case at bar, the existence of a prior subsisting marriage between the
deceased and Editha is supported by 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.
SSC found (affirmed by CA and SC) based on the SSS field investigation report
that even if Editha was the legal wife, she was not qualified to the death
benefits since she herself admitted that she was not dependent on her
deceased husband for support inasmuch as she was cohabiting with a certain
Aquilino Castillo.
The appellate court also held that the law is clear that for a child to be qualified
as dependent, he must be unmarried, not gainfully employed and must not be
21 years of age, or if over 21 years of age, he is congenitally or while still a
minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support,
physically or mentally. And in this case, only the illegitimate children of the
deceased with Gina namely, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, are the qualified
beneficiaries as they were still minors at the time of the death of their father.
Considering petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary and the absence of
any legitimate children of the deceased, it follows that the dependent
illegitimate minor children of the deceased should be entitled to the death
benefits as primary beneficiaries.
Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish
his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Since petitioner is disqualified
to be a beneficiary and because the deceased has no legitimate child, it follows
that the dependent illegitimate minor children of the deceased shall be
entitled to the death benefits as primary beneficiaries. The SSS Law is clear
that for a minor child to qualify as a "dependent, the only requirements are
that he/she must be below 21 years of age, not married nor gainfully
employed.
In this case, the minor illegitimate children Ginalyn and Rodelyn were born on
13 April 1996 and 20 April 2000, respectively. Had the legitimate child of the
deceased and Editha survived and qualified as a dependent under the SSS Law,
Ginalyn and Rodelyn would have been entitled to a share equivalent to only
50% of the share of the said legitimate child. Since the legitimate child of the
deceased predeceased him, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary
beneficiaries of the deceased, are entitled to 100% of the benefits.
The obvious conclusion then is that a wife who is already separated de facto
from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for support" upon the
husband, absent any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that
the husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death, it
would be safe to presume that she was dependent on the husband for
support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.
CASE: SSC, et al. v. Favila
GR no. 170195, March 28, 2011
Issue:
Whether Teresa a dependent upon Florante for support in order
for her to fall under the term dependent spouse under Scetion 8
(k) of RA 1161 (law applicable as the time of death of member)
SC
A spouse who claims entitlement to death benefits as a primary
beneficiary under the Social Security Law must establish two
qualifying factors, to wit: (1) that she/he is the legitimate spouse,
and (2) that he/she is dependent upon the member for support.
What the SSC relies on in concluding that Teresa was not
dependent upon Florante for support during their separation for 17
years was its findings that Teresa maintained an illicit relationship
with another man. Teresa however counters that such illicit
relationship has not been sufficiently established and, hence, as the
legal wife, she is presumed to be continually dependent upon
Florante for support.
We agree with Teresa that her alleged affair with another man was
not sufficiently established.
It is not hard to see that Estelitas claim of Teresas cohabitation
with a married man is a mere allegation without proof. Likewise,
the interviews conducted by SSS revealed rumors only that Teresa
had an affair with a certain police officer. Notably, not one from
those interviewed confirmed that such an affair indeed existed.
SC found untenable Teresas assertion that being the legal wife, she
is presumed dependent upon Florante for support. In Re:
Application for Survivors Benefits of Manlavi, SC defined
dependent as one who derives his or her main support from
another [or] relying on, 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.
SC declared in Aguas the obvious conclusion is that a wife who is
already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be
dependent for support upon the husband, absent any showing to
the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that the husband and wife
are still living together at the time of his death, it would be safe to
presume that she was dependent on the husband for support,
unless it is shown that she is capable of providing herself. Hence,
we held therein that the wife- claimant had the burden to prove
that all the statutory requirements have been complied with,
particularly her dependency on her husband at the time of his
death.
In this case, aside from Teresas bare allegation that she was
dependent upon her husband for support and her misplaced
reliance on the presumption of dependency by reason of her valid
and then subsisting marriage with Florante, Teresa has not
presented sufficient evidence to discharge her burden of proving
that she was dependent upon her husband for support at the time
of his death. She could have done this by submitting affidavits of
reputable and disinterested persons who have knowledge that
during her separation with Florante, she does not have a known
trade, business, profession or lawful occupation from which she
derives income sufficient for her support and such other evidence
tending to prove her claim of dependency.
If deceased member is survived by legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted
and illegitimate children, how is monthly pension to be divided?
If survived by less than five, the illegitimate minor children will be
entitled to 50% of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally
adopted and 100% of the dependents pension (equivalent to 10%
of the members monthly pension or P250 whichever is higher).
Only five minor children, beginning from the youngest, are entitled
to dependents pension. When there are more than 5, the
legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted shall be preferred.
For how long will the dependent child receive the pension?
When the child reaches 21 years old, gets married, gets employed
or dies. However, the dependents pension is granted for life to
children who are over 21 years old, provided they are incapacitated
and incapable of self-support due to physical or mental disability
which is congenital and acquired during minority.
 AGRARIAN
Contributions in 1985. Since the suit was filed within a few months from the time of the
discovery of the violation, the Supreme Court ruled that the suit was filed
SSS 11% of the monthly salary credit not exceeding P16,000 and payable by within the prescriptive period.
both employer (7.37%) and employee (3.63%) effective Jan. 1, 2007.

Self-employed and voluntary members pay the 11% of the monthly salary
credit (MSC) based on the monthly earnings declared at the time of
registration.

For OFWs, the minimum monthly salary credit is pegged at P5,000.

For the non-working spouse, the contribution will be based on 50% of the
working spouse?s last posted monthly salary credit but in no case shall it be
lower than P1,000

SS Number

The SS number assigned to a member is the lifetime number and

must always be used in all transactions with the SSS. The member should not
secure another number at any other time.

If the member wishes to secure another SS card and cannot

remember the SS number, it is advisable to inquire from the SSS servicing
branch.

If a member has more than one SS number, this will cause delay in
processing of the claim for benefits or loans in the future. Thus, it is important
that a member should have only one SS number. Therefore, he/she should
write or visit the SSS servicing branch to request for the cancellation of the
other number/s and consolidation of all of the contributions under the
retained number. From then on, the retained number should be used in all
transactions with the SSS.

Right to Insitute

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.

Penal Clause

The issue of the prescriptive period in filing an action against the employer for
enforcing the provisions of RA 1161 was one of the issues raised in the case of
Rafael A. Lo vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 128667), in this case, in 1953, the
respondent Luguibis started working as a mechanic at the Polangui Rice Mill
Inc which was owned at the time by Jose Lo. In 1959, he was asked to render
services as a mechanic at the Polangui Bijon Factory which was also owned by
Jose Lo. He resigned in 1970 due to illness.

In 1978, the management of the company was transferred to Jose Los son,
Rafael Lo and his sister Leticia Lo. In 1981, the private respondent was again
hired by Jose Lo as a mechanic. In 1984, the private respondent suffered an
accident while repairing one of the defective machines in the noodle factory
where he sustained serious injuries forcing him to retire.

In 1985, private respondent applied for retirement benefits with the SS.
However, his application was denied since per SSS records he became a
member only in 1983 and contributions were remitted only from October
1983 to September 1984 despite the fact that SSS contributions in the amount
of P3.50 have been deducted from his monthly salary since 1957. As a result,
he filed a petition with the SSS against petitioner Rafael Lo and Jose Lo.

The issue is whether the petitioners right to claim his SSS benefits has already
prescribed.

The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Section 22(b), par. 2 of RA 1161 or
the SSS Law, the right to file the said action has not yet prescribed. It states
that 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. (emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court also clarified that the said provision applies to
administrative and civil actions against an employer for his failure to remit SSS
contributions. On the other hand, criminal actions for violations of the SSS law,
on the other hand, prescribe in four years.

The Supreme Court also explained the reckoning of the 20-year period. It
explained that the period of prescription commences to run only upon the
discovery of the violation. In this case, the discovery was made only when the
petitioners application for retirement benefits was denied by SSS which was