Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > August 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDITH ASIAIN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21448. August 30, 1967.]

POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO., Petitioner, v. JUDITH ASIAIN, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, and BENITO MACRHON, in his capacity as Sheriff of Rizal, Respondents.

Fernando B. Duque and Yolando F . Bustamante for Petitioner.

Solicitor General A. A. Alafriz, Solicitor C .D. Quiason and Atty. L.A.L. Javellana and E. T . Duran for respondent SSC.

Orlando V . Calsado for-respondent Asiain.


SYLLABUS


1. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM; COMPULSORY COVERAGE; EMPLOYEE’S UNWILLINGNESS TO GIVE HIS SHARE OF THE CONTRIBUTION; EFFECT THEREOF. — There is no question that the deceased Miguel Asiain was subject to compulsory coverage in the Social Security System, although the deceased’s SSS Form E-1 (Employees’ Date Record) was never filed with the Social Security System for the reason, according to the company, that he refused to have his share of the corresponding monthly contributions deducted from his salary. It was the duty of the employer to "report immediately to the System" his name, age, civil status, occupation, salary and dependents Compliance with this duty did not depend upon the employee’s willingness to give his share of the contribution. Section 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 latter is liable for an amount equivalent to the benefits to which the employee would have been entitled had such report been made.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIMS IN SECTION 5(a) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT DEEMED TO INCLUDE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 24; JURISDICTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION TO AWARD DAMAGES AFFIRMED. — It is true that Section 24 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 that "the filing, determination and settlement of claims shall be governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission;" and the rules and regulations thus promulgated state that "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 am employer could nullify the jurisdiction of the Commission by the simple expedient of not making a report as required by said Section.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Miguel Asiain was an employee of the Poblete Construction Company from 1956 until his death on November 22, 1959, with a monthly salary of P300. Upon his death his widow, Judith Asiain, for herself and her minor children, filed a petition before the Social Security Commission against the company and its manager, Domingo Poblete (Case No. 78), to recover the following sums: (1) P3,600.00 equivalent to one year’s salary of the deceased; (2) P600.00 representing his unpaid salary for two months; (3) P288,00 "representing the cash received by respondents from their laborers as contribution to the family of the deceased;" and (4) P2,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.

The respondents below moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Social Security Commission had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter and that the petitioner Judith Asiain had no capacity to sue. The Commission denied the motion to dismiss in its order of February 25, 1960 and ordered the respondents to file their answer. When no answer was forthcoming, the respondents were declared in default in an order dated March 9, 1960, and the petitioners were allowed to present their evidence.

In its resolution of September 15, 1960 the Commission declared itself without jurisdiction to entertain the claims in the petition except the one for the sum of P3,600, which it awarded on the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing and pursuant to Section 24 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended. A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents was denied, and they elevated the case for review by the Court of Appeals, which upon proper application issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stop all further proceedings below, including execution of the award.

The case was afterwards certified to this Court for the reason that when the respondents below were declared in default they lost their standing before the Commission, and not having regained the same by a motion to set aside or petition for relief, they had no right to appeal from the default judgment; and that in any event no questions of fact are involved and hence, if at all appealable, the appeal should be directly to this Court.

The procedural issues, we believe, need not concern us. The main point raised here by the Poblete Construction Company, which it raised also in its motion to dismiss before the Commission, is that the said body had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of P3,600, which should have been presented before the ordinary courts. This claim was filed under Section 24 of the Social Security Act (R.A. 1161, as amended), which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘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 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that although the deceased Miguel Asiain had been employed in the Poblete Construction Company since 1956 and had accomplished SSS Form E-1 (Employees’ Date Record) and transmitted the same to the said company’s Manila Office, it was never filed with the Social Security System for the reason, according to the company, that he refused to have his share of the corresponding monthly contributions deducted from his salary. Upon these facts the company maintains that the deceased was not a member of the System when he died and hence the adjudication of the claim for damages under Section 24, supra, does not pertain to the Commission but to the courts of justice.

We find the argument untenable. There is no question that the deceased Miguel Asiain was subject to compulsory coverage in the Social Security System. 1 It was the duty of the employer to "report immediately to the System" his name, age, civil status, occupation, salary and dependents. Compliance with this duty did not depend upon the employee’s willingness to give his share of the contribution. Section 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 latter is liable for an amount equivalent to the benefits to which the employee would have been entitled 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 that "the filing, determination and settlement of claims shall be governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission;" and the rules and regulations thus promulgated state that "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. The collection 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 situation that the employer is liable, and there is no question as to the amount of such liability in this case.

The decision of the Social Security Commission is affirmed, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved, with costs against herein petitioner.

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

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 9. Compulsory coverage. — Coverage in the System shall be compulsory upon all employees between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, inclusive, if may have been for at least six months in the service of an employer who is a member of the System . . ."

SEC. 10(a) Compulsory coverage of any employee shall take effect on the first day of the calendar month following the month when his employer qualified as a member of the System, provided said employee has rendered at least six months’ service.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20218 August 8, 1967 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22254 August 8, 1967 - QUIRICO DEL MAR v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22966 August 10, 1967 - FAUSTO MIPALAR v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21542 August 10, 1967 - IN RE: JOSEPH C. GO YANKO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23558 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24103 August 10, 1967 - BEATRIZ G. VDA. DE DIOS v. LEANDRO BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23281 August 10, 1967 - BILLY MILLARES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19531 August 10, 1967 - CLOROX COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21311 August 10, 1967 - PELAGIA PUGUID v. CIRILO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-21902 August 10, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24109 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIA P. DE OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-18805 August 14, 1967 - THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. MAXIMO M. KALAW, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 407 August 15, 1967 - IN RE:JOSE AVANCEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-22029 August 15, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO JARAVATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22821 August 15, 1967 - ASUNCION CONUI-OMEGA v. CESAR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-27017 August 15, 1967 - PACIFICO M. BRAGANZA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22380 August 15, 1967 - FERMIN SARE v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-24114 August 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22042 August 17, 1967 - DIONISIA GUINGON, ET AL. v. ILLUMINADO DEL MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21013 August 17, 1967 - UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22516 August 17, 1967 - LITTON & CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21806 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO DY OLIVA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23167 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: GEORGE QUE LIONG SIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24614 August 17, 1967 - JULIA DE LA MERCED, ET AL. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25171 August 17, 1967 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION (PAFLU) v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21128 August 19, 1967 - IN RE: AO SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21835 August 19, 1967 - CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24031 August 19, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22348 August 23, 1967 - GREGORIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23617 August 26, 1967 - ANGELO KING v. PABLO JOE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24383 August 26, 1967 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE & CASUALTY CO., INC. v. SMITH, BELL & CO., (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-27206 August 26, 1967 - IN RE: ANDRES M. CULANAG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-23561 August 28, 1967 - ALFONSO DARAN v. DOMINADOR ANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-20991 August 30, 1967 - RUFINO CIELOS, ET AL. v. BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21011 August 30, 1967 - ISABEL OCAMPO v. IGNACIO DOMALANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDITH ASIAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22072 August 30, 1967 - ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL. v. EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22260 August 30, 1967 - TEODORICO C. QUIOCHO v. BERNARDO P. ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 August 30, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 516 August 30, 1967 - TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-21501 August 30, 1967 - MANILA CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION v. MANILA CLUB, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21963 August 30, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ROBERTA RONGAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22108 August 30, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. MARCELINO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24066 August 30, 1967 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-21467 August 30, 1967 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18877 August 31, 1967 - JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22047 August 31, 1967 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22618 August 31, 1967 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23406 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: O KU PHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18778 & L-18779 August 31, 1967 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL. v. DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 August 31, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967 - DOMINGO V. AUSTRIA v. ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-20708 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: FELIMON TSE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20527 August 31, 1967 - VICENTE Y. REALIZA v. GASPAR DUARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22684 August 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC. v. WOODWORKS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22810 August 31, 1967 - FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.