3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

SOCIAL SECURITY LAW

ABRIGO
APOLINARIO
ATMOSFERA
BACANI
BERNAL
CHUA
CLEMENTE
CRUZ, A.
CRUZ, B.
DELA CRUZ
GORDON
IGOT
LANZON
MANAUIS
NEPOMUCENO
1) CMS Estate FACTS:
Inc. v. SSS 1. On Dec. 1, 1952, CMS Estate was organized for the purpose of engaging in real estate,
(L-26298) and did business with only 6 employees. Its AOI was amended in order to engage in the
logging business, and obtained an ordinary license from the Bureau of Forestry to
CHUA operate a forest concession of 13.000 hectares.
2. CMS entered into a contract of management with Rojas for the opera on and
exploita on of the forest concession. When it started, the company only has four
monthly salaried employees but as of Sept. 1, 1957, it had 89 employees.
3. On Dec. 26, 1957, it revoked its contract of management with Rojas.
4. On Aug. 1, 1958, CMS Estate became a member of SSS with respect to its real estate
business. It remi ed to SSS P203.13 represen ng the ini al premium on the monthly
salaries of the employees in its logging business.
5. However, CMS demanded the refund of the amount, claiming that it is not yet subject
to compulsory coverage with respect to logging business. This was denied by SSS on the
ground that the logging business was a mere expansion of CMS’ ac vi es and for
purposes of SSS Act, CMS should be considered a member since Dec. 1, 1952.
6. CMS then filed a pe on with Social Security Commission for the determina on of their
effec vity date of the compulsory coverage of their logging business.
7. SSC → subject to compulsory coverage as of Sept. 1, 1957
8. CMS Estate → Sec. 9 of SS At should be given liberal interpreta on; SSC cannot combine
two dis nct businesses when one has not yet been in opera on for more than 2 years
9. SSS → Social Security Act speaks of compulsory coverage of employees, not business;
once employer is ini ally covered under SS Act, any other business undertaken by the
same employer is likewise subject in spite of the fact that the la er has not been in
opera on for at least 2 years

ISSUE: W/N logging business was subject to compulsory coverage of SS Act - YES

HELD: The Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government "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 protec on against the
hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death" (Sec. 2, RA 1161, as amended). Said
enactment implements the general welfare mandate of the Cons tu on and cons tutes a
legi mate exercise of the police power of the State.

As men oned in PH Blooming Mills v SSS, the membership in the SSS is not a result of bilateral,

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 1/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

consensual agreement where the rights and obliga ons of the par es are defined by and
subject to their will, RA 1161 requires compulsory coverage of employees and employers under
the System. It is actually a legal imposi on on said employers and employees, designed to
provide social security to the workingmen. Membership in the SSS is therefore, in compliance
with the lawful exercise of the police power of the State, to which the principle of
non-impairment of the obliga on of contract is not a proper defense.

While the taxing power of the State is for the purpose of raising revenue, the emphasis of the SS
Law is on the promo on of general welfare. The funds contributed to the System belong to the
members who will receive benefits as a ma er of right whenever hazards provided by law occur.
All that is required of CMS is to make monthly contribu ons for covered employees in its
employ, which contribu ons are not in the nature of taxes on employment but for the
protec on of said employees against hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line
with the cons tu onal mandate to promote social jus ce to insure the well-being and economic
security of all people.

Thus, all doubts in construing SS Act should favor coverage rather than exemp on. Prior to its
amendment, 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 opera on for at least two years and has at the
me of admission at least six employees. It is the employer, either natural, or judicial person,
who is subject to compulsory coverage and not the business. If the inten on 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. None of the sort appeared in the new law.

Should each business venture of the employer be considered as the basis of the coverage, an
employer with more than one line of business but with less than six employees in each, would
never be covered although he has in his employ a total of more than six employees which is
sufficient to bring him within the ambit of compulsory coverage. This would frustrate rather
than foster the policy of the Act. In the absence of an express provision for a separate coverage
for each kind of business, the reasonable interpreta on is that once an employer is covered in a
particular kind of business, he should be automatically covered with respect to any new
name. Any interpreta on which would defeat rather than promote the ends for which the Social
Security Act was enacted should be eschewed.

Furthermore, the amendatory law RA 2658 eliminated the 2 year stabiliza on period as
employers now become automa cally covered immediately upon start of business.

DOCTRINE: Sec. 10 of RA 2658 provides that compulsory coverage of the employer shall take
effect on the first day of his opera on, and that of the employee on the date of his employment.
Once an employer is covered in a par cular kind of business, he should be automa cally
covered with respect to any new name. It is the inten on of the law to cover as many persons as
possible to promote the cons tu onal objec ve of social jus ce.

2) Phil. Blooming FACTS: The Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., has been employing Japanese technicians under
Mills Inc. v. SSS a pre-arranged contract of employment, the minimum period of which employment is 6 months
(L-21223) and the maximum is 24 months. The corpora on had in its employ 6 Japanese technicians. In
connec on with the employment of these aliens, it sent an inquiry to the Social Security System
CLEMENTE
(SSS) whether these employees are subject to compulsory coverage under the System, which
inquiry was answered by the First Deputy Administrator of the SSS saying that they were. But for
aliens shall, upon their departure from the Philippines, be en tled to a rebate of a

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 2/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

propor onate amount of their contribu ons. The employers likewise shall be en tled to the
same propor onate rebate of their contribu ons in behalf of said aliens employed by them.

A claim was filed with the SSS for the refund of the premiums paid to the System, on the
ground of termina on of the members’ employment. As this claim was denied, they filed a
pe on with the Social Security Commission (SSC) for the return or refund of the premiums,
paid by the employer corpora on and the 6 Japanese employees, plus a orneys’ fees.

SSS: Denied the claim. It alleged:

1. That Rule IX of the Rules and Regula ons of the System requires membership in the
System for at least 2 years before a separated or resigned employee may be allowed a
return of his personal contribu ons. Under the same rule, the employer is not also
en tled to a refund of the premium-contribu ons it had paid.

SSC: denied the pe on for the reason that:

1. Although under the original provisions of Sec on 3(d) of Rule I of the Rules and
Regula ons of the SSS, alien-employees (who are employed temporarily) and their
employers are en tled to a rebate of a propor onate amount of their respec ve
contribu ons upon the employees’ departure from the Philippines, said rule was
amended by elimina ng that por on gran ng a return of the premium contribu ons.

2. This amendment became effec ve before the employment of the subject aliens
terminated. The rights of covered employees who are separated from employment,
under the present Rules, are covered by Rule IX which allows a return of the premiums
only if they have been members for at least 2 years.

Appellants now come to court contending that:

1. The amendment of the Rules and Regula ons of the SSS, insofar as it eliminates the
provision on the return of premium-contribu ons, cons tuted an impairment of
obliga ons of contract.

2. That when appellants employees became members and paid the corresponding
premiums to the System, it is subject to the condi on that upon their departure from
the Philippines, these employees, as well as their employer, are en tled to a rebate of a
propor onate amount of their respec ve contribu ons.

ISSUE 1: W/N a contractual relationship existed between the parties so that it shall be under
the protection of the constitution on the prohibition against its impairment by law. [NO]

HELD 1: The conten on cannot be sustained. Membership in this ins tu on is not the result of a
bilateral, consensual agreement where the rights and obliga ons of the par es are defined by
and subject to their will. Republic Act 1161 requires compulsory coverage of employers and
employees under the System. It is actually a legal imposi on, on said employers and employees,
designed to provide social security to the workingmen. Membership in the SSS is, therefore, in
compliance with a lawful exercise of the police power of the State, to which the principle of
non-impairment of the obliga on of contract is not a proper defense.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 3/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

ISSUE 2: W/N the appellants are bound by the amended Rules requiring membership for two
years before a refund of the premium-contributions may be allowed. [YES]

HELD 2: It may be argued, however, that while the amendment to the Rules may have been
lawfully made by the Commission and duly approved by the President on January 14, 1958, such
amendment was only published in the November 1958 issue of the Official Gaze e, and a er
appellants’ employment had already ceased. Suffice it to say, in this regard, that under Ar cle 2
of the Civil Code, the date of publica on of laws in the Official Gaze e is material for the
purpose of determining their effec vity, only if the statutes themselves do not so provide.

In the present case, the original Rules and Regula ons 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 publica on of the amended rules in
the Official Gaze e did not affect the date of their effec vity, 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 Regula ons, which requires membership for 2 years before such
refund of premiums may be allowed.

DOCTRINE: Membership in the SSS is not the result of a bilateral, consensual agreement where
the rights and obliga ons of the par es are defined by and subject to their will. Republic Act
1161 requires compulsory coverage of employers and employees under the System. It is actually
a legal imposi on, on said employers and employees, designed to provide social security to the
workingmen. Membership in the SSS is, therefore, in compliance with a lawful exercise of the
police power of the State, to which the principle of non-impairment of the obliga on of contract
is not a proper defense.

3) In Re Pe on for FACTS:
Exemp on from ● In 1958, Pe oner filed with SSS a request that Catholic chari es, and religious and
Coverage by the charitable ins tu ons be exempted from compulsory coverage of Social Security Law of
SSS, Roman 1954.
Catholic Bishop of -They claim that the said Act is a labor law and does not cover religious and
Manila v. SSC
charitable ins tu on
(L-15045)
- Applica on is limited to businesses and ac vi es organized for profit
CRUZ, A. ● Social Security Commission denied the request
● Pe i oner filed for reconsidera on of the resolu on
● Commission denied the request
● Social Security Law provides that the coverage of this law is predicated upon the
existence of an employer-employee rela onship of more or less permanent nature and
extends to employment of all kinds except those expressly excluded
- Coverage "in the System shall be compulsory upon all members between the age
of sixteen and sixty rears inclusive, if they have been for at least six months a the service of an
employer who is a member of the System, Provided, that the Commission may not compel any
employer to become member of the System unless he shall have been in opera on for at least
two years and has at the me of admission, if admi ed for membership during the first year of

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 4/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

the System's opera on at least fi y employees, and if admi ed for membership the following
year of opera on and therea er, at least six employees x x x."
-Employer - any person, natural or juridical, domes c or foreign, who carries in
the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or ac vity of any kind and uses the
services of another person who is under his orders about the employment, except the
Government and any of its poli cal subdivisions, branches or instrumentali es, including
corpora ons owned or controlled by the Government
-Employee - any person who performs services for an 'employer' in which either
or both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensa on for such services
● Pe oner alleges that the term “employer” under the law should be limited to those
who carry n “undertakings or ac vi es which have the element of profit or gain

ISSUE: Whether Pe oner should be exempt from being covered under the law

HELD:NO.The Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy to establish gradually and
perfect a social security system which shall be suitable to the needs of the people throughout
the Philippines. (See. 2, Republic Act No. 1161)

Such enactment is a legi mate exercise of the police power. Being in fact a social legisla on,
compa ble with the policy of the Church to ameliorate living condi ons of the working class,
Pe oner cannot arbitrarily delimit the extent of its provisions to rela ons between capital and
labor in industry and agriculture.

There is no merit in the claim that the inclusion of religious organiza ons under the coverage of
the Social Security Law violates the cons tu onal prohibi on against the applica on of public
funds for the use, benefit or support of any priest who might be employed by appellant. 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 re rement death or
disability benefits would not cons tute a viola on of the cited provisions of the Cons tu on,
since such payment shall be made to the priest not because he is a priest but because he is an
employee.

DOCTRINE:
Under the Social Security law, even religious and charitable ins tu ons are covered, provided
that an employer-employee exists in the said ins tu on.

4) SSS v. Atlan c FACTS:

Gulf and Pacific ● On February 13, 2004, Atlan c Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. and Semirara Coal
Company (175952) Corpora on (SEMIRARA) filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against
April 30, 2008 SSS before the RTC of Batangas City.
TINGA, J. ● The complaint alleged that in 2000, Atlan c Gulf informed the SSS in wri ng of its premiums
and loan amor za on delinquencies covering the period from January 2000 to May 2000
CRUZ, B. amoun ng to P7.3 Million.
● Atlanta Gulf proposed to pay its said arrears by end of 2000, but requested for the
condona on of all penal es In turn, SSS suggested 2 op ons to AG&P, either to pay by
installment or through dacion en pago.
● Atlanta Gulf chose to se le its obliga on with the SSS through dacion en pago of its 5,999
sq.m. property situated in Baguio City with an appraised value of about P80.0 Million.
● SSS proposes to carve-out from the said property an area sufficient to cover Atlanta Gulf’s

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 5/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

delinquencies.
● However, Atlanta was not not amenable to subdivide the Baguio property
● Atlanta Gulf then made another proposal to SSS. This me, offering as payment a por on of
its 58,153 sqm lot in F.S. Sebas an, Sto. Nio, San Pascual, Batangas. In addi on, SSS
informed Atlanta Gulf of its decision to include other companies within the umbrella of
DMCI group with arrearages with the SSS.
● In the process of elimina on only SEMIRARA was le with outstanding delinquencies with
the SSS. Thus, SEMIRARAs inclusion in the proposed se lement through dacion en pago;
● Atlanta Gulf was directed by the SSS to submit documents, such as TCTs, Tax Declara on,
and the proposed subdivision plan.
● On April 4, 2001, SSS, in its Resolu on approved Atlanta Gulf’s proposal to se le its and
SEMIRARAs delinquencies through dacion en pago, amounted to P29,261,902.45. As a
result of the approval of the dacion en pago, pos ng of contribu ons and loan amor za on
to individual member accounts was effected immediately therea er. Thus, the benefits of
the member-employees of both companies were restored
● From the me of the approval of Atlanta Gulf’s proposal up to the present, it has religiously
remi ed the premium contribu ons and loan amor za on of its member-employees to the
defendant; To effect the property transfer, a Deed of Assignment has to be executed.
● Because of SSS failure to come up with the required Deed of Assignment to effect said
transfer, Atlanta Gulf prepared the dra and submi ed it to the Office of the Vice-President
NCR thru SSS Baclaran Branch.
● However, SSS failed to take any ac on on said Deed of Assignment causing Atlanta Gulf to
re-submit it to the same office. Atlanta Gulf was also consistent in its regular follow ups with
SSS as to the status of its submi ed Deed of Assignment;
● On February 28, 2003, or more than a year a er the approval of the proposal, SSS sent the
revised copy of the Deed of Assignment. However, the amount of obliga on appearing in
the approved Deed of Assignment has ballooned from P29,261,902.45 to P40,846,610.64
allegedly because of the addi onal interests and penalty charges assessed on plain ffs
outstanding obliga on from April 2001, the date of approval of the proposal, up to January
2003
● Atlanta Gulf demanded for the waiver and dele on of the addi onal interests on the ground
that delay in the approval of the deed and the subsequent delay in conveyance of the
property in SSS’ name was solely a ributable to it ; hence, to charge would be
unreasonable.
● Atlanta Gulf and SEMIRARA maintain their willingness to se le their alleged obliga on of
P29,261,902.45 to SSS. However, SSS refused to accept the payment through dacion en
pago, unless they also pay the addi onal interests and penal es being charged
● SSS moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdic on and non-exhaus on of
administra ve remedies.
● RTC of Batangas granted SSSs mo on and dismissed the complaint.
○ According to the trial court the dispute between the par es was directly related to the
collec on of SSS contribu ons. RA 1161 as amended by R.A. 8282, specifically provides
that any dispute arising under the said Act shall be cognizable by the Commission and
any case filed with respect thereto shall be heard by the Commission. Hence, a
procedural process mandated by a special law.
○ The trial court believes that the subject ma er is the payment of contribu ons and the
corresponding penal es which are within the ambit of Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1161, as
amended by R.A. No. 8282. Therefore the trial court having no jurisdic on over the
subject ma er of the instant complaint.
● Consequently, Atlanta Gulf filed an appeal before the CA alleging that the trial court erred in
its pronouncement that it had no jurisdic on over the subject ma er of the complaint and
in gran ng the mo on to dismiss.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 6/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

● CA reversed the decision of RTC and ordered the trial court to proceed with the civil case.
○ CA held that the subject of the complaint is no longer the payment of the premium,
loan amor za on delinquencies and penal es but the enforcement of the dacion en
pago pursuant to SSS Resolu on No. 270. The ac on then is one for specific
performance which case law holds is an ac on incapable of pecuniary es ma on
falling under the jurisdic on of the RTC.
● SSS filed a MR to the CA but was denied

ISSUE:Whether or not RTC has jurisdic on to entertain a controversy arising from the
non-implementa on of a dacion en pago agreed upon by the par es as a means of se lement
of private respondents liabili es?

HELD: Yes.
● The per nent provision of law detailing the jurisdic on of the Commission is Sec on
5(a) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social
Security Act of 1997, to wit:
○ 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 the mandatory period of 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.
● The law clearly vests upon the Commission jurisdic on over disputes arising under this
Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contribu ons and penal es thereon or any
ma er related thereto. However in the case, there was no longer any dispute with
respect to Atlanta’s accountability to the SSS.
● Atlanta Gulf had admi ed their delinquency and offered to se le them by way of dacion
en pago subsequently approved by the SSS in Resolu on No. 270-s. 2001.
● SSS stated in said resolu on that the dacion en pago proposal of AG&P Co. of Manila
and Semirara Coals Corpora on to pay their liabili es in the total amount of
P30,652,710.71 as of 31 March 2001 by offering their 5.8 ha. property located in San
Pascual, Batangas, be, as it is hereby, approved. This statement unequivocally shows its
consent to the dacion en pago. Therefore, the controversy, lies in the
non-implementa on of the approved and agreed dacion en pago on the part of the SSS.
● As such, Atlanta Gulf filed a suit to obtain its enforcement which is a suit for specific
performance and one incapable of pecuniary es ma on beyond the competence of the
Commission.
● In Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, the Court held as follows:
○ In determining whether an ac on is one the subject ma er of which is not
capable of pecuniary es ma on this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal ac on or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary es ma on, and whether jurisdic on in the municipal courts or in the
courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However,
where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, this Court has considered such ac ons as cases where
the subject of the li ga on may not be es mated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now RTC)
NOTES: Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 7/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obliga on. It is a special mode
of payment where the debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent
of payment of an outstanding debt. The undertaking really partakes in one sense of the nature
of sale, that is the creditor is really buying the thing or property of the debtor, payment for
which is to be charged against the debtors debt.

DOCTRINE: The law clearly vests upon the Commission Jurisdic on over “disputes arising under
the Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contribu ons and penal es thereon or any ma er
related thereto” Dispute is defined as a conflict or controversy”

5) Phil. American FACTS:

Life Insurance Co. v. The Social Security System (System) issued, with the approval of the Chairman of the Social
SSC Security Commission (Commission) Circular No. 34 (Exhibit A), requiring all insurance firms to
submit immediately the names of their agents, solicitors or underwriters, who, pursuant to the
DELA CRUZ Social Security Act (Act) are employees of said firms, subject to compulsory coverage of the
System, and to pay the corresponding, premiums, based on the actual commissions received by
each agent during each month.

Some me later, the System, sent to the Philippine American Life Insurance Company SSS Form
R-1-A-1, advising plain ff that pursuant to said Circular No. 34, the insurance agents thereof are
considered its employees, subject to compulsory coverage under said Act, and urging plain ff to
accomplish said SSS Form and to submit the same, within ten (10) days, to avoid the penal es
provided for by law.

Instead of complying with this request, plain ff commenced, in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the present ac on, for prohibi on with preliminary injunc on, against the Commission
— to restrain the la er 1) from compelling plain ff to remit contribu ons to the administra ve
branch of the System, and 2) from prosecu ng plain ff and its officers for their refusal to make
the aforemen oned contribu ons.

The trial court ruled (1) holding that plain ff's agents, solicitors or underwriters are not
employees of plain ff; (2) commanding defendant Social Security Commission to desist
absolutely from taking criminal ac on against plain ff's officers under the provisions of Sec on
28 (e) and (f) of the Social Security Act, and from requiring plain ff to remit contribu ons.
Hence, the present appeal to this Court, since ques ons purely of law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court had jurisdic on to hear and decide this case (NO)
HELD:
- Sec on 5(a) of RA 1161 confers on the Social Security Commission the power to
determine and se le claims, which power partakes of a quasi-judicial func on. In the
exercise of said power, the Commission is not inferior to courts of first instance, in much
the same way as the Public Service Commission, as a board performing quasi judicial
func ons, is not inferior to said courts. The quasi-judicial nature of the func ons of the
Social Security Commission is emphasized by its authority, expressly granted by said Sec.
5 (a), to promulgate rules and regula ons governing "the filing, determina on and
se lement of claims". Hence, the lower court had no jurisdic on to issue the writ of
prohibi on therein prayed for by the appellee.
- The Commission performs administra ve, as well as quasi-judicial func ons. Although,
it can sue and be sued in courts of first instance, either as regards its administra ve
func ons, or in the otherwise when the act complained of forms part of its

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 8/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

quasi-judicial func ons.

- Although Circular No. 34 bears the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, said
approval does not cons tute a "decision" thereof, as the term is used in sec on 5,
which regulates the judicial review of such decision. Indeed, a "decision" connotes the
adjudica on or se lement of a controversy, and the same did not exist between the
System and the plain ff when the Chairman of the Commission affixed his signature to
said Circular No. 34 on or before November 6, 1960.
- It is only fair and just, as well as administra vely expedient, that before judicial review
could be sought, appellee's objec on to the aforemen oned circular be previously
submi ed to and to and passed upon by the Commission, for, pursuant to Sec on 5(b)
the Social Security Act, the judicial review of "any decision of the Commission shall be
permi ed only a er any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted his
remedies before the Commission".
- The general rule applicable to ac ons for cer orari and prohibi on against tribunal,
board or officer is that the aggrieved party must seek therefrom a reconsidera on of
the decision complained of so that the la er will have an opportunity to correct the
error or mistake complained of. No such reconsidera on has been asked by plain ff
herein. Hence, it has no cause of ac on for prohibi on, which does not lie except in the
absence of appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
- RA 4857, Sec. 2 of which amended Sec. 5 (c) of RA 1161 provides that "any dispute
arising under this Act with respect to coverage, etc. shall be cognizable by the
Commission . . . " Hence, there can be no ques on that any dispute with respect to
coverage is cognizable by the Commission.
DOCTRINE:
The quasi-judicial nature of the func ons of the Commission is emphasized by its authority,
expressly granted by said Sec on 5 (a), to promulgate rules and regula ons governing "the
filing, determina on and se lement of claims." Hence, the lower court had no jurisdic on
to issue the writ of prohibi on prayed for.

6)Poblete FACTS:
Construc on Co. v.
Miguel Asiain was an employee of the Poblete Construc on Company. His widow, Judith
SSC (17605) Jan. 22,
Asiain, filed a pe on before the Social Security Commission against the company and its
1964
manager, Domingo Poblete, to recover the following sums: (1) P3,600.00 equivalent to one
GORDON year's salary of the deceased; (2) P600.00 represen ng his unpaid salary for two months; (3)
P288,00 "represen ng the cash received by respondents from their laborers as contribu on
to the family of the deceased;" and (4) P2,000.00 by way of a orney's fees.
Poblete Construc on Company moved to dismiss the pe on on the grounds that the
deceased was not a member of the System when he died because of his refusal to have his
share of the corresponding monthly contribu ons deducted from his salary. Hence the
adjudica on of the claim for damages under Sec on 24, supra, does not pertain to the
Commission but to the courts of jus ce.
Section 24 of the Social Security Act (R.A. 1161, as amended), which provides:
'SEC. 24. Employment records and reports. — (a) each employer shall report
immediately to the System the names, ages, civil status, occupations, salaries and
dependents of all his employees who are in his employ and who are or may later be
subject to compulsory coverage: Provided, That if an employee subject to

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytzJ… 9/10
3/15/2019 AGRA -SOCIAL SECURITY LAW - Google Docs

compulsory coverage should die or become sick or disabled without the System
having previously received a report about him from his employer, the said employer
shall pay to the employee or his legal heirs damages equivalent to the benefits to
which said employee would have been entitled had his name been reported on time
by the employer to the System."

The Commission declared itself without jurisdic on to entertain the claims in the pe on
except the one for the sum of P3,600. A subsequent mo on for reconsidera on filed by the
respondents was denied, and they elevated the case for review by the Court of Appeals,
which upon proper applica on issued a writ of preliminary injunc on to stop all further
proceedings below, including execu on of the award.

ISSUE: W/N SSC has the power to hear the case

HELD: YES. Social Security Commission was exercising its quasi-judicial powers granted by
Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 1161. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claim was not
within the jurisdiction of the Commission, a certiorari from CFI is improper because the same
law puts SSC in equal footing with CFI. Certiorari can only be issued by a superior court
against an inferior one.
The deceased Miguel Asiain was subject to compulsory coverage in the Social Security System.
It was the duty of the employer to "report immediately to the System" his name, age, civil
status, occupa on, salary and dependents. Compliance with this duty did not depend upon
the employee's willingness to give his share of the contribu on. Sec on 24 is mandatory, to
such an extent that if the employee should die or become sick or disabled without the report
having been made by the employer, the la er is liable for an amount equivalent to the
benefits to which the employee would have been en tled had such report been made. It is
true that the provision uses the word "damages" in referring to the amount that may be
claimed. But this fact alone does not mean that the Social Security Commission lacks
jurisdiction to award the same.
Section 5(a) of the Social Security Act provides
"The filing, determina on and se lement of claims shall be governed by the rules and
regula ons promulgated by the Commission;" and the rules and regula ons thus
promulgated state that "the effec vity of membership in the System, as well as the
final determina on and se lement of claims, shall be vested in the Commission." The
term "claims" is broad enough to include a claim for "damages" under Sec on 24.
Otherwise an employer could nullify the jurisdic on of the Commission by the simple
expedient of not making a report as required by said Sec on. The collec on of the
employee's share is a duty imposed by law, and his unwillingness to have it deducted
from his salary does not excuse the employer's failure to make the report aforesaid. It
is precisely in this situa on that the employer is liable, and there is no ques on as to
the amount of such liability in this case.
DOCTRINE: "the effectivity of membership in the System, as well as the final determination
and settlement of claims, shall be vested in the Commission." The term "claims" is broad
enough to include a claim for "damages" under Section 24. Otherwise an employer could
nullify the jurisdiction of the Commission by the simple expedient of not making a report as
required by said Section.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-h67CF0g61K9Pwv3cv_TYmcQeG3u0K361gLSz-wzJTs/edit?fbclid=IwAR2MKYxRLTLhKj_id-fZg7eXDqhfFytz… 10/10