Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > August 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21930 August 31, 1966 AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21930. August 31, 1966.]

AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent-Appellee.

Paulino Manongdo for Petitioners-Appellants.

Orlando L. Espinas for Respondent-Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is an appeal by Agapita Pajarillo, Et Al., from the resolution of the Social Security Commission, denying their petition to be exempted from coverage of the Social Security System.

There is no controversy as to the facts of this case. Appellants are owners of fishing boats being used for fishing at sea, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Owner Name of Vessel

Agapita Pajarillo Bagong Kalayaan

Basilio Medina Stella Maris

Rosario Relloso Villa Florida

Teofila Campana Salenian

Melicia Totanes Nazareno

Melicia Totanes San Pedro

Ireneo Racelis Ricardo

Salvador Boral Villa Rosario

Cesar King Felipa

Ramon King Tacia

Jaime King Aday

Amelia Reyes Queen Mary

Amelia Reyes Nanay

Teofilo Nasiss Teresita

Rosario Reyes Charing Uno

Rosario Reyes Charing Dos

Aurora Sales Aurora.

As such property-owners, they enter into agreements 1 with the so-called patrons or pilots, whereby the latter take charge of appellants’ fishing vessels, equipment, and gear used for fishing. Once entrusted with the equipment, the pilot "hires" the crew to man the boat and secures their provisions. This is usually financed from loans obtained in the form of advances from fish dealers, and payable in kind when the boat returns with catch from the fishing trip. (pp. 23-24, t.s.n.)

These fishing trips are not regular. The fishermen go out to the sea only when there is no moon or it is not yet very bright. For this reason, even in months of fine weather, the most that a boat can make are 18 fishing days every month. These men have no regular income. If the trip yields a catch, the proceeds thereof are divided into three parts: one part goes to the owner of the boat and equipment; one part is set aside to cover expenses like crude oil and for maintenance of the boat, and the other one-third is divided among the men, with the pilot getting 3 times the share of a crew-member, and the "machinist", who tends or operates the engine of the motorized boat, receiving twice the share of a crew-member. (pp. 9, 23, t.s.n.)

The men (usually 12 for every vessel, including the pilot) are under no obligation to stay in one outfit. Sometimes, they join as members of the crew for one night only; sometimes two, or three days. Then, they leave and join other outfits (pp. 18-19, t.s.n.). Even the pilot himself is not bound to retain his charge for any definite duration. He can return the boat to its owner anytime, if he does not want to manage it anymore. (p. 11, t.s.n.). The vessel-owners, appellants in the present case, required to register as employers with the Social Security System, filed a joint petition with the Social Security Commission, claiming that there exists no employer-employee relationship between them and the crew of their fishing vessels, and praying that they be exempted from the compulsory coverage of the law. After hearing, their petition was denied, the Commission holding that while the services of the crew-members are engaged by the pilots, the latter are mere employees or agents of the boat-owners. Thus, it is contended, a boat-owner can abolish the employment of the crew-members by withdrawing from the pilot the authority to take charge of the vessel. Appellants, consequently, were directed to report their coverage and that of their respective pilots and crew-members to the Commission and to pay the prescribed premiums pursuant to Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Republic Act 1161, as amended. The boat-owners filed the present appeal.

The only issue raised before the Commission and presented in this appeal is, as stated by the Commission itself, "whether under the facts set forth above, there exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the crew-members of their respective fishing boats within the meaning of Republic Act 1161, as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the law, an employer is a "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." 2 In the case at bar, the pilots are not under the orders of the boat-owners as regards their employment. They go out to sea not upon direction of the boat-owners, but upon their own volition as to when, how long and where to go fishing. Much less do the boat-owners in any way control the crew-members with whom the former have no relationship whatsoever. These crew-members simply join every trip for which the pilots allow them, without any reference to the owners of the vessel.

On the other hand, an employee is defined as a "person who performs services for an ‘employer’ in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services where there is an employer-employee relationship." 3 In the present case, neither the pilots nor the crew-members receive compensation from the boat-owners. They only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts. There is no showing that outside of their one-third share, the boat owners have anything to do with the distribution of the rest of the catch among the pilots and the crew- members. The latter perform no service for the boat-owners, but mainly for their own benefit.

In the undertaking in question, the boat-owners obviously are not responsible for the wage, salary, or fee of the pilot and crew-members. Their sole participation in the venture is the furnishing or delivery of the equipment used for fishing, after which, they merely wait for the boat’s return and receive their share in the catch, if there is any. For this part, a person who joins the outfit is entitled to a share or participation in the fruit of the fishing trip. If it gives no return, the men get nothing. It appears to us, therefore, that the undertaking is in the nature of a joint venture, with the boat-owner supplying the boat and its equipments, and the pilot and crew-members contributing the necessary labor, and the parties getting specific shares for their respective contributions.

But, even assuming arguendo that the pilot and crew-members may be treated as employees of the boat-owner, they cannot also be made subject to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Act. As previously stated, the men are under no obligation to remain in the outfit for any definite period. Thus, one can be the crew-member of an outfit for one day and be the member of the crew of another vessel the next day. Also, a fishing boat has no regular schedule of fishing trips. It all depends on the weather and other natural conditions, and the volition of the pilots and crew-men themselves. And, even when a fishing trip is completed, it is no assurance of income for the fishermen and the boat-owner as well. Clearly, the services rendered by the fishermen are no different from the agricultural labor performed by a share or leasehold tenant or worker, which is specifically excluded from the definition of "employment", 4 and exempted from the coverage of the Social Security Act.

Add to this the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of determining the monthly wage or earning of these fishermen for the purpose of fixing the amount of their and the supposed employer’s contributions, 5 and there is every reason to exempt the parties to this kind of undertaking from compulsory registration with the Social Security System.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the resolution of the Social Security Commission appealed from is hereby set aside, and petitioners-appellants are declared exempted from compulsory coverage: of the Social Security law. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Regala, J., on leave, took no part.

Endnotes:



1. All agreements entered into in connection with this occupation are not in writing.

2. Sec. 8(c), Rep. Act 1161.

3. Sec. 8(d), Ibid., as amended by Rep. Act 2658.

4. "SEC. 8. Terms defined. — . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


"(j) Employment. — Any service performed by an employee for his employer except —

"(1) Agricultural labor when performed by a share or leasehold tenant or worker who is not paid any regular daily wage or base pay and who does not work for an uninterrupted period of at least six months in a year; . . ." (Rep. Act 1161, as amended by Rep. Act 2658)

5. See Secs. 18 and 19, Ibid.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 15905 August 3, 1966 NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG

  • G.R. No. L-17838 August 3, 1966 NASIPIT LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21885 August 3, 1966 GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ABIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14044 August 5, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20938 August 9, 1966 NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22534 August 9, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13896 August 10, 1966 IN RE: ERNESTO TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16488 August 12, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN RAQUINIO

  • G.R. No. L-19520 August 12, 1966 FELIPE NACORDA, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24672 August 12, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 August 12, 1966 LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11077 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI BUN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20020 August 23, 1966 TAN TE BUNTIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17243 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO VILLALBA

  • G.R. No. L-19832 August 23, 1966 IN RE: BERNARDO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21768 August 23, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23286 August 23, 1966 QUERUBIN PERFECTO v. ALFREDO SAPICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25635 August 23, 1966 JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-5796 August 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CAPADOCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24439 August 29, 1966 HADJI ARSAD SALI v. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18454 August 29, 1966 MARIANO CABILAO, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21230 August 29, 1966 GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21376 August 29, 1966 LUZ M. GIGARE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21796 August 29, 1966 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21287 August 31, 1966 ENRILE INTON v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE

  • G.R. No. L-21930 August 31, 1966 AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16759 August 31, 1966 RAFAEL MORALES v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23635 August 31, 1966 TEODORO M. CASTRO v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18726 August 31, 1966 THOMAS M. GONZALEZ v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18961 August 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19376 August 31, 1966 TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19833 August 31, 1966 IN RE: COSME GO TIAN AN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966 IN RE: LIM ENG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20821 August 31, 1966 BEATRIZ M. VDA. DE CASTILLO, ET AL. v. BLANCA CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21055 August 31, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES.) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21223 August 31, 1966 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-21442 August 31, 1966 SALUD S. PAPA v. GERVACIO S. BANAAG

  • G.R. No. L-21512 August 31, 1966 PROSPERO SABIDO, ET AL. v. CARLOS CUSTODIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21703-04 August 31, 1966 MATEO H. REYES, ET AL. v. MATEO RAVAL REYES

  • G.R. No. 21969 August 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOFIA REYES FLORZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25994 and L-26004 to L-26046 August 31, 1966 BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26376 August 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO BALISACAN