ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146074.March 14, 2001]

NEM SINGH vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2001.

G.R. No. 146074(Alfredo C. Nem Singh vs. CA, et al.)

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking for the review of a Court of Appeals Decision dated July 25, 2000, and a Court of Appeals Resolution dated November 22, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration of the former decision. The original case was a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages for alleged violations of the Social Security System (SSS) Law filed by petitioner Alfredo Nem Singh, an employee of the defendant (herein respondent) Federation of Free Workers (FFW), in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The complaint sought to compel the FFW and its officers Juan C. Tan, Floro Oliveros, and Francisco Cristobal, to register him with the SSS in accordance with law. A motion to dismiss based on alleged lack of jurisdiction of the regional trial court, among other reasons, was timely filed by the defendants, which was granted by the regional trial court in an Omnibus Order dated December 8, 1998. Such Order was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals and is the subject of the present petition before this Court.

The main issue pertains to which body has jurisdiction to entertain an employee's claim for compulsory coverage to the SSS. The original action filed by the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is one for Specific Performance and Damages to compel the private defendants, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), its officers, and the Social Security System, to report his name as an employee of the FFW to the Social Security System for compulsory coverage effective September 25, 1990, the date of his employment. The complaint also prayed for private defendants to pay him damages for their willful neglect to include him with the SSS for compulsory coverage, as well as to pay the SSS for both the employer's and the employee's contributions commencing from the petitioner's employment until his actual payroll reinstatement.

Note that prior to filing the original case for Specific Performance and Damages at the regional trial court, petitioner filed an action for Illegal Dismissal against the private respondents, which was eventually decided in his favor. In the Decision dated December 6, 1995, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu ordered Alfredo Nem Singh's reinstatement immediately executory even pending appeal, 1 Annex "B", p. 43.pursuant to provisions of the Labor Code.

In an Omnibus Order dated December 8, 1998, the regional trial court dismissed the complaint and ruled that pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of R.A. 1161 as amended by R.A. 8282 (The Social Security Law of 1997), the instant case falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction, of the Social Security Commission. The aforesaid provision clearly states:

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 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.

Furthermore, public respondents also cited the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Social Security Commission, 2 22 SCRA 1207 (1968).wherein the Supreme Court ruled that by specific mandate of Sec.5(b) of R.A. 1161, that any matter in dispute that concerns the Social Security Commission may not be properly entertained before the Courts until all remedies in said Commission have been exhausted. In such case this Court held:

What is clear, indeed, from the provisions of Section 5 of the Social Security Act particularly paragraphs (b) and (c), is the restriction upon the court to review the decision of the Social Security Commission. x x x

As was previously held in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Social Security Commission, 3 20 SCRA 162 (1967).

It is only fair and just, therefore, as well as administratively expedient, that before a judicial review could be sought, said issue be previously submitted to and passed upon by the Commission on appeal from the action taken or contemplated to be taken by the System, since, prior to such submission to and determination by the Commission, the same had occasion to consider the specific reasons adduced x x x.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the aforesaid Order, in a Decision dated July 25, 2000. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, which Motion was denied in a Court of Appeals Resolution dated November 22, 2000. Petitioner now comes before this Court arguing that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it made the following ruling:

1) That Sec. 5 of R.A. 1161 vests exclusive original jurisdiction on the Social Security Commission in all disputes arising from the Social Security Law;

2) That the existence of an employer-employee relationship is for the Social Security Commission to determine and decide;

3) That the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in this case;

4) When it ruled that the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction at all over this case.

Petitioner now submits the following arguments:

1) That the Social Security Commission does not exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the matters set forth in said Sec. 5 of R.A. 1161;

2) Given that their jurisdiction is not exclusive, that Sec. 19(6) of BP Blg. 129 4 SEC. 19.Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

xxx (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; xxxshould therefore apply, vesting the Regional Trial Court with jurisdiction over the present case;

3) 'That in view of the letter of Sec. 19(6) of BP 129, the Regional Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the said subject matters, to the exclusion of the Social Security Commission;

4) At best, that the Social Security Commission exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts;

5) That since the complainant opted to file his complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, this court exercises jurisdiction in the case at bar, to the exclusion of the Social Security Commission.

The petition is without merit.

The law is clear and categorical in vesting jurisdiction over cases of this import with the Social Security Commission, in accordance with Section 5(a) of the Social Security Law and as decided by the public respondents. Section 5(a) of the law provides that "any dispute arising under this act with respect to coverage, etc. shall be cognizable by the Commission." 5 An Act Further Strengthening the Social Security System thereby Amending for this Purpose Republic Act No. 1161.As Amended.Otherwise known as the Social Security Law of 1997, Emphasis ours.Hence, there can be no question that any dispute with regard to coverage is cognizable by the Commission and must be brought before such body before recourse to the courts of law.

In the case of San Beda College vs. SSS 6 33 SCRA 190, 198 (1970).which involved an employee's claims for premium contributions under the Social Security Law, the Court pointed out that the enactment in 1966 of Republic Act 4857 amending the original Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1161, rendered obsolete the provision in Section 22 under the old law providing for collection of defaulted contributions "by an action in court, which shall hear and dispose of the case in preference to any other civil action." 7 Cited in 33 SCRA 190, 198.This Court held that under the amendatory provisions of Republic Act 4857 amending Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1161 (Social Security Act), all disputes arising from the collection and settlement of premium contributions and penalties should first be passed upon by the Social Security Commission, subject to judicial review provided in paragraph (c) of Section 5 of the Social Security Act. 8 33 SCRA 190 (1970).Note that such aforesaid provision is substantially similar to Section 5 of the present law, otherwise known as the Social Security Law of 1997.

Furthermore, the doctrine on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in this case. The doctrine states that whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all remedies have been availed of and exhausted. In his book on Political Law, 9 "OUTLINE/REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW," 1998, p. 223.Atty. Nachura summarizes the reasons for its application:

1. If relief is first sought from a superior administrative agency, resort to the courts may be unnecessary.

2. The administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its error.

3. Principle of comity and convenience requires the courts to stay their hand until the administrative processes are completed.

4. Since judicial review of administrative decisions is usually made through special civil actions, such proceedings will not normally prosper if there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 10 Ibid , citing Aquino vs. Mariano, 129 SCRA 532 (1984); National Development Company vs. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 200 (1987).

Section 5(a) confers on the Social Security Commission the power to determine and settle claims, which power partakes of a quasi-judicial function. The quasi-judicial nature of the functions of the Commission is emphasized by its authority, expressly granted by Section 5(a), to promulgate rules and regulations governing the filing, determination and settlement of claims. 11 Supra .In case relief is sought, a decision of the Commission in the performance of its quasi-judicial powers may be brought to the Court of Appeals or directly to this Court, in accordance with Sections 5(b) and 5(c) and the appropriate provisions of the Rules of Court. However, such review may not be sought until the aggrieved party has first exhausted his remedies before the Commission.

Section 5(b) of the Social Security Law explicitly states:

Section 5.Settlement of Disputes.

xxx(b) Appeal to Courts -Any decision of the Commission, in the absence of an appeal therefrom as herein provided, shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the date of notification, and judicial review thereof shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted his remedies before the Commission x x x.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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