AGRARIAN FINAL EXAM POINTERS

1.

Who can be considered an employer? Whether non-profit

org can be considered ER under SSS law
Coverage of Employers
a. An employer, or any person who uses the services of
another person in business, trade, industry or any
undertaking.
b.
A social, civil, professional, charitable and other nonprofit organization which hire the services of
employees are considered employers.
c.
A foreign government, international organization or its
wholly-owned instrumentality such as embassy in the
Philippines, may enter into an administrative
agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino
employees

2.

Effect of a final judgment in an NLRC case, regarding EE

relationship.

RP v. Asiapro
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

3. JOB ORDERS IN GSIS (NOT COVERED)

JOB ORDERS DI LANG MU REFER SA CLERICAL WORK/

KANA POD NANG MGA WALAY WORK STATION WLAY APIL SA TABLE
OF ORGANIZATION/ BISAN KAPILA PA MAG RENEW BASTA JOB
ORDER KA DI GYUD KA COVERED SA SSS

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

GSIS NI FIRST
Who are covered?
Compulsory for all employees:

Appointive or elective

Whether temporary, casual, permanent or

contractual w/ e-e relationship
(so those under job orders are not covered)

Who are receiving basic pay or salary but not per

diems, honoraria or allowances; and

Who have not reached the compulsory retirement

age of 65 yrs.
When coverage takes effect?

Upon the employees assumption to duty pursuant to a valid

appointment or election and oath of office.
Are elective officials still covered after their term of office
expires?

Compulsory coverage shall cease upon expiration of term.

They have the option to continue with life insurance so long

as they will pay both the employee and employer shares.

On social security coverage, said official shall continue to be

a member and shall be entitled to benefits that provide for
contingencies (death, disability or separation) subject to
satisfaction of eligibility conditions.
Who are not covered?

Employees
who
have
separate
retirement
schemes under special laws and are therefore
covered by their respective retirement laws, such
as the members of the Judiciary, Constitutional
Commissions, and other similarly situated
government officials;

Uniformed members of AFP & PNP including BJMP;

Those who are not receiving basic pay or salary

Contractuals who have no employer and employee

relationship with the agencies they serve

When does a contractual have e-e relationship with his

employer?

Person was selected and engaged by the employer

Employer pays the salary

Employer has the power of dismissal

Employer has the power to control the means and

the result of the work to be done

4. New benefits under GSIS.

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

Unemployment benefit
Separation benefit

Unemployment Benefit:

The benefit is paid when a permanent employee is

involuntarily separated from the service as a result of the
abolition of his office or position usually resulting from
reorganization.

Separation Benefit:

A cash payment of 18 times the Basic Monthly Pension at

time of separation and a life pension to start at the age of
60 will be given to those who separate from the service
with at least 15 years service and are below 60 years of
age.
Under PD 1146, separated member will have to wait until
he is 60 years of age to receive any separation benefit.

precedence. No appeal shall act as 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.
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.

6.Section 2 Technical rules not binding. These

rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the
objectives of the Social Security Act of 1997 and
to assist the parties in obtaining expeditious and
inexpensive
settlement
or
resolution
of
any
dispute arising under the said Act.

In any proceeding, which shall be non-litigious in

nature, the rules of evidence prevailing in the
courts of law shall not be controlling.

5. Sec 4. "(c) Court Review. The decision of the Commission

upon any disputed matter may be reviewed
both upon the law and the facts by the Court of Appeals. For the
purpose of such review the procedure
concerning appeals from the Regional Trial Court shall be followed as
far as practicable and consistentwith the purposes of this Act. Appeal
from a decision of the Commission must be taken within fifteen

CASE: Signey vs. SSS

(15) days from notification of such decision. If the decision of the

Commission involves only questions of

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.

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

SC:

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.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

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.

7. Effectivity 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.
For separated member on the month the person resumed payment
of contribution

8. Prescriptive period for claims of survivorship benefits

under GSIS.
"SECTION 28. Prescription. Claims for benefits under this
Act except for life and retirement shall prescribe after four
(4) years from the date of contingency.
When the pensioner dies within the 5-year period after
receiving the five-year lump sum, the survivorship pension
shall be paid only after the end of the said five-year period.
However, filing of claim for survivorship benefit should be
done before the end of the 4-year prescription period
9. Beneficiaries under GSIS:
1.
When a member or pensioner dies, the primary
beneficiaries (surviving legal spouse and dependent
children) or secondary beneficiaries, as the case may be,
shall be entitled to the applicable survivorship benefits.
2.
The primary beneficiaries[1] shall be the
following:

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

a.
The legitimate spouse, until s/he remarries, or co-habits/engages in common-law relationship;
and
b.
The dependent legitimate, legally
adopted or legitimated children, including illegitimate
children, who have not reached the age of majority, or,
have reached the age of majority but incapacitated and
incapable of self-support due to a mental or physical defect
acquired prior to age of majority.
3.
The secondary beneficiaries shall be the
dependent parents and, subject to the restrictions on
dependent children, the legitimate descendants[2].
The secondary beneficiaries shall only be entitled to
survivorship benefits if there are no primary beneficiaries[
10. COA Disallowances
As a general rule, they cannot be deducted except when his
monetary liability contractual or otherwise in favor of gsis member
separated for cause automatically forfeit unless terms of resignation
or separation provide otherwisemember separated not for cause shall
continue to be member and entitled subject to qualification and other
prescription
what is COA disallowances?
Disallowance - the disapproval in audit of a transaction, either in
whole or in part. The term applies to the audit of disbursements a s
distinguished from "charge" which applies to the audit of
revenues/receipts.

the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing
rules and regulations including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and
properties.

Section 4. Audit Disallowances/ Charges/ Suspensions - In the

course of the audit, whenever there are differences arising from the
settlement of accounts by reason of disallowances or charges, the
auditor shall issue Notices of Disallowances/Charge (ND/NC) which
shall issue Notices of Disallowance/Charge (ND/NC) which shall be
considered as audit decisions, recommendations or dispositions shall
be supported by applicable laws, regulations, jurisprudence and the

generally accepted accounting and auditing principles. The Auditor

may issue Notices of Suspension (NS) for transactions of doubtful
legality/validity/ propriety to obtain further explanation or
documentation.

"SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien

"The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the
benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or
other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or
administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA)
disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members,
including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or
occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or
duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or
work except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is
in favor of the GSIS.
GSIS VS COA
the main controversy of whether COA disallowances could be
deducted from retirement benefits because the Board ordered the
dismissal of respondents claim for alleged lack of jurisdiction, before
it could even decide on the principal issue.
the lone issue is whether COA disallowances could be legally
deducted from retirement benefits on the ground that these were
respondents monetary liabilities to the GSIS under the said
provision. There is no dispute that the amounts deducted by GSIS
represented COA disallowances. Thus, the only question left for the
Board to decide is whether the deductions are allowed under RA
8291.

provision of law clearly states that no amount whatsoever could be

legally deducted from retirement benefits, even those amounts
representing COA disallowances.
47.5. Exemption of all Funds of the GSIS from Tax, Attachment,
Execution, Levy or Other Legal Processes.- The funds and/or the
properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from

attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued
by the courts, quasi judicial agencies or administrative bodies
including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all
financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary
accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or
performance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relative to
or in connection with his position or work except when his monetary
liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.

11. Benefits employer needs to advance

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

12. The primary beneficiaries under GSIS

Primary beneficiaries- The legal dependent
spouse until he/she remarries and the
dependent children.
SEC. 21. Death of a Member. - (a) Upon the death
of a member, the primary beneficiaries shall be
entitled to:
(1) survivorship
deceased:

pension:

Provided,

That

the

(i) was in the service at the time of his death; or

(ii) if separated from the service, has at least
three (3) years of service at the time of his death
and has paid thirty-six (36) monthly contributions
within the five-year period immediately preceding
his death; or has paid a total of at least one
hundred eighty (180) monthly contributions prior
to his death; or
(2) the survivorship pension plus a cash payment
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of his
average monthly compensation for every year of
service: Provided, That the deceased was in the
service at the time of his death with at least three
(3) years of service; or

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

(3) a cash payment equivalent to one hundred

percent (100%) of his average monthly
compensation for each year of service he paid
contributions, but not less than Twelve thousand
pesos (P12,000.00): Provided, That the deceased
has rendered at least three (3) years of service
prior to his death but does not qualify for the
benefits under item (1) or (2) of this paragraph.
Caveat: akong interpretation sa claims under SSS kai kanang
disputes over coverage, etc2x. unia ang mga cases under Jurisdiction
over SSS claims kai nagsturia man sad kabahin sa Section 5.

13. Jurisdiction over claims for Social Security

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
[Social Security] Commission1, 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
(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. The Commission shall be
deemed to be a party to any judicial action
involving any such decision, and may be
represented by an attorney employed by the
Commission,
or
when
requested
by
the
1

Composed of SOLE (or designated

undersecretary), SSS President and 7 appointive
members

Commission, by the Solicitor General or any public

prosecutors.

RA 8282, Sec. 8 (e) Dependents - The dependents shall be the

following:

(c) Court Review. - The decision of the

Commission upon any disputed matter may be
reviewed both upon the law and the facts by the
Court of Appeals. For the purpose of such review,
the procedure concerning 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.

"(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the
member;

14. Whether the consent of SSS is required before any

criminal action is filed
-

15. Is the legal wife presumed to be a dependent under SS

Law?
Yes.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

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.
16. Application of Portability Law.

No.

RA 8282, Sec. 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 Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.

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.

With the help of RA 7699, otherwise known as the Portability Law,

government retirees who do not meet the required number of years
provided under PD 1146 and RA 8291 can still avail of retirement and
other benefits.
Under the scheme, you may combine your years of service in the
private sector represented by your contributions to the Social
Security System (SSS) with your government service and
contributions to the GSIS to satisfy the required years of service
under PD 1146 and RA 8291.
However, if you have satisfied the required years of service under the
GSIS retirement option you have chosen, you would not be allowed
to incorporate your contributions to the SSS anymore for availment
of additional benefits.
In case of death, disability and old age, the periods of creditable
services or contributions to the SSS and GSIS shall be summed up to
entitle you to receive the benefits under either PD 1146 or RA 8291.
If qualified under RA 8291, all the benefits shall apply EXCEPT the
cash payment. The reason for this is that the Portability Law or RA

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

7699 provides that only benefits common to both Systems (GSIS and
SSS) shall be paid. Cash payment is NOT included in the benefits
provided by the SSS.
Portability Benefits RA 7699

A member of GSIS who does not qualify for old age

and other benefits by reason of non-fulfillment of the
required period of service may be able to qualify for
such benefits by making use of the period during
which he rendered services to a private employer and
for which contributions were paid to SSS. This is
allowed under RA 7699 (approved May 1, 1994)

The Act instituted a limited portability scheme in the GSIS

and SSS by totalizing the workers creditable services or
contributions in each of the Systems.

Portability refers to transfer of funds for the benefit and

account of a worker who transfers from one system to the
other (RA 7699, Sec. 2 [b]).

Totalization refers to the process of adding up the

periods of creditable services or contributions in each of the
Systems for purposes of eligibility and computation of
benefits, For purposes of totalization, overlapping periods of
membership shall be considered once only (Sec. 3)
Overlapping period refers to the period during which a
worker contributes simultaneously to GSIS and SSS.

17. Coverage of judges under GSIS.

Sec. 5. "Payment of premium for retirement insurance shall

begin on the last day of June, nineteen hundred and fiftyone or of the calendar month the employee entered the
service or became covered by his retirement plan,
whichever is the later date, and that for life insurance shall
begin on the last day of the calendar month preceding the
month in which one's insurance takes effect: Provided,
however That retirement premiums shall not be required of
Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals,
and Judges of the Courts of First Instance, Agrarian
Relations, Industrial Relations, Tax Appeals and Juvenile
and Domestic Relation Courts, officers and enlisted men of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines who as hereby excluded
from said benefit.
RA 9946 amends RA 910 provides for retirement benefits of
justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and trial
court judges.

10.2.1 The compulsory life policy of a regular member

whose membership classification has been converted to
special member by virtue of his appointment as a Judge,
Justice or their equivalent, shall be terminated upon
separation from his old position. He shall be provided LEP
coverage upon assumption to duty to his new position

18-19:
[A.M.
No.
10019-Ret.
February
22,
2001]
Re: Application for Survivors Benefits of Ms. Maylenne G.
Manlavi, daughter of the Late Ernesto R. Manlavi.
This case involves an application for Survivors Benefits filed by Ms.
Maylenne G. Manlavi, daughter of the late Ernesto R. Manlavi, a
former Clerk of Court II from the Municipal Circuit Trial Court at El
Nido, Palawan. He had been in the government service for a total of
17 years, 10 months, and 13 days, when he died on June 23,
1999. These claims are based on R.A. 8291, Sections 20 and 21(a),
of which provide:
Sec. 20Survivorship Benefits. When a member or pensioner dies,
the beneficiaries shall be entitled to survivorship benefits provided in
Sections 21 and 22 hereunder subject to the conditions therein
provided for. The survivorship pension shall consist of:
(1) the basic survivorship pension which is fifty percent
(50%) of the basic monthly pension; and
(2) the dependent childrens pension not exceeding fifty
percent (50%) of the basic monthly pension.
Sec. 21. Death of a Member.-- (a) Upon death of a member, the
primary beneficiaries shall be entitled to:
(1) survivorship pension: Provided that the deceased:
(i) was in service at the time of his death; or
(ii) if separated from the service, has at least three (3)
years of service at the time of his death and has paid
thirty-six (36) monthly contributions within the fiveyear period immediately preceding his death; or has
paid a total of at least one hundred eighty (180)
monthly contributions prior to his death.
(2) the survivorship pension plus a cash payment
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of his
average monthly compensation for every year of
service; Provided, that the deceased was in the

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

service at the time of his death with at least three (3)

years of service.[1]
At the time of his death, Ernesto R. Manlavi had one legitimate
daughter, Ms. Maylenne G. Manlavi, who was born on October 30,
1977 and six (6) illegitimate children he had begotten with his
common-law wife, Ms. Maribelle Endocado, namely, Maybelle
Manlavi, born April 16, 1985; Ernest Glenn Manlavi, born August 1,
1986; Mark Andrew Endocado, born August 27, 1989; John Edward
Endocado, born April 28, 1992; James Robert Endocado, born May
25, 1996; Ernesto Endocado II, born August 2, 1999. He and
Maribelle Endocado had been living together since 1984, four years
after his legal wife, Ms. Marilou G. Manlavi, left him and their only
daughter to cohabit with a married man. [2] From that time on,
Marilou G. Manlavis whereabouts had been unknown to her
family. Maylenne's Application for Survivor's Benefits was supported
by an affidavit executed by a certain Manny Mananquil, the next door
neighbor of the Manlavis since the 1980s, who stated that he had
personal knowledge that Ms. Marilou G. Manlavi was in hiding and
was implicated in the murder of one Delfin Lim, an old but rich
businessman and her live-in partner,[3] who was murdered inside his
own home in Pasig City. The other principal suspect in the same
case is her alleged new lover, one Rogelio Jing de Guia, a
businessman who is engaged in a fishing venture in Northern
Palawan. Since the murder and up to the present, Marilou G.
Manlavi and Rogelio Jing de Guia became fugitives from justice,
their whereabouts unknown.[4]
In the meantime, however, the union of Ernesto Manlavi and
Maribelle Endocado was not merely tolerated but accepted, not only
by his daughter but also by the community which elected Ernesto
Manlavi as President of the Civic and Social Organization. Maribelle
treated Maylenne as her own child, and in her affidavit, Maylenne
describes the union of her father and his common-law wife as
happy, albeit illicit.[5]
Maylenne's application for Survivors Benefits was in behalf of
herself and her six (6) half brothers and sisters.
This Court in a Resolution dated November 16, 1999 approved
the application as recommended by the Court Administrator. The
Resolution states:
x x x. The Court Resolved to APPROVE the application for survivor's
benefits under Secs. 20 and 21(a), R.A. 8291, of Ms. Maylenne G.
Manlavi, legitimate daughter of the late Ernesto R. Manlavi, former
Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, El Nido, Palawan,
effective upon the latter's death on 23 June 1999, without prejudice
to the share of the four (4) illegitimate children of the
deceased. Payment of the benefits shall be subject further to the
submission of a Declaration of Absence of Ms. Marilou GonzalesManlavi (wife of the deceased) and to the availability of funds and
the usual clearance requirements.

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

The pertinent portions of Section 21(b) of R.A. 8291 states:

SEC. 21. Death of a Member.The survivorship pension shall be paid as follows:
xxx
(2)
when only dependent children are the survivors, they
shall be entitled to the basic survivorship pension for as long as they
are qualified, plus the dependent childrens pension equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the basic monthly pension for every dependent
child not exceeding five (5) counted from the youngest and without
substitution;
(3)
when the survivors are the dependent spouse and the
dependent children, the dependent spouse shall receive the basic
survivorship pension for life until he/she remarries, and the
dependent children shall receive the dependent childrens pension
mentioned in the immediate preceding paragraph (2) hereof.[6]
On January 12, 2000 however, the legitimate wife Marilou G.
Manlavi suddenly reappeared and filed her own application for
Survivors Benefits dated January 3, 2000, by reason of the death of
said Ernesto Manlavi. Maylenne bitterly opposed her mother's
application. In her Affidavit dated February 10, 2000, Maylenne G.
Manlavi states, to wit:
AFFIDAVIT

of my mother and the sacrifices of my father, have elected the latter

President of Civic and Social Organizations in the Community;

accruing Ernesto Manlavi be forfeited in favor of all the other legal

heirs of the deceased.

That on the other hand, Marilou Gonzales Manlavi has many times
around changed her living partners after she had shamelessly
abandoned my father and me; that she and her paramour, a certain
"JING de GUIA" whose whereabouts are unknown, are WANTED by
the Police Authorities for the alleged killing of her previous paramour,
one Hadji Delfin Lim;

For equitable and humanitarian considerations, it is respectfully

recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court to:

That meanwhile, the happy, albeit illicit union of the late Ernesto R.
Manlavi and Maribelle Endocado whom I lovingly called "Auntie" has
given them - please take note - SIX (6) children, namely:
1) MAYBELLE MANLAVI - born April 16, 1985; 2) ERNEST GLENN
MANLAVI - born August 01, 1986; 3) MARK ANDREQ (sic)
ENDOCADO - born August 27, 1989; 4) JOHN EDWARD ENDOCADO
- born April 28, 1992; 5) JAMES ROBERT ENDOCADO - born May 25,
1995; and 6) ERNESTO ENDOCADO II - born August 02, 1999;
That I am executing this Affidavit in lieu of a Declaration of Absence
of Marilou Gonzales Manlavi, the same being no longer possible
considering that the said Marilou Gonzales Manlavi has suddenly, but
certainly surreptitiously, showed up at the Supreme Court,
notwithstanding her being in the List of WANTED persons.

a) EXPUNGE from the Resolution of the Court En Banc

dated November 16, 1999, the proviso subject to the
submission of Declaration of Absence of Marilou
Manlavi;
b) FORFEIT the shares of Marilou Manlavi in the
Survivors Benefits and payment of the money value
of the Terminal Leave accruing the deceased; and
c) DIRECT the Financial Management Office, OCA, to
release the Survivors Benefits and money value of
the Terminal Leave pay due and accruing the late
ERNESTO R. MANLAVI in favor of his legitimate
daughter MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI and the FOUR
(4) illegitimate children under Sections 20 and 21 (a)
of RA 8291 subject to the availability of funds and the
usual clearance requirements.[8]
We find
Administrator.

merit

in

the

recommendation

of

the

Court

In order to be entitled to the Survivorship Benefits under R.A.

8291, the beneficiary must be dependent upon the GSIS member or
pensioner for support. Thus, Section 21(b) explicitly mentions
"dependent spouse" and "dependent children" as those who shall
receive survivorship pension.

El Nido, Palawan
February 10, 2000.

The same statute enumerates who are the dependents:

I, MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident
of El Nido, Palawan, under oath, do hereby depose and say:

(SGD.) MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI

Affiant[7]

That I am the only legitimate child of ERNESTO R. MANLAVI who died

on June 23, 1999, at El Nido, Palawan, and MARILOU GONZALES
MANLAVI, my mother, who had left the conjugal home in 1982 to
carry on her illicit relationship with a married man;
That since then, it was my father, the late Ernesto R. Manlavi, who
lovingly and patiently played a dual role of father and mother to me
until he met MARIBELLE ENDOCADO in 1984 who agreed to live with
my father without the benefit of marriage and to play the role of
mother to me;
That the illicit union of Ernesto R. Manlavi and Maribelle Endocado
was not merely tolerated, but indeed accepted, by the sympathetic
inhabitants of El Nido, Palawan, who, well aware of the infedility (sic)

Acting on Marilou's application and Maylenne's opposition

thereto, the Court Administrator submitted his recommendation
which is quoted in part:
A careful study of the Affidavit dated February 10, 2000 submitted by
Maylenne G. Manlavi shows the bitterness she harbored against her
mother, who was not even present during the wake of his father and
surreptitiously showed up just for the sole purpose of filing a claim
for Survivor's Benefits of the deceased, to the extent of deliberately
omitting her mother as one of the heirs of her father, in her
application for Survivor's Benefits which was approved by the Court
in its resolution dated November 16, 1999. For the sins and
omissions of Marilou G. Manlavi, it is submitted that her shares in the
Survivor's Benefits and payment of money value of Terminal Leave

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Sec. 2. Definition of terms. -- Unless the context otherwise

indicates, the following terms shall mean:
xxx
(f) DependentsDependents shall be the following: (a) the
legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the member or
pensioner;[9] (b) the legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted
child, including the illegitimate child, who is unmarried, not
gainfully employed, not over the age of majority, or is over
the age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of selfsupport due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to
the age of majority; and (c) the parents dependent upon the
member for support. [10]
"Dependent" means "one who derives his or her main
support from another. Meaning, relying on, or subject to,

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain oneself,

or to perform anything without the will, power, or aid of
someone else."[11]

21. Defenses of lack of criminal intent and good faith under

SS Law.

While Marilou G. Manlavi's marriage to the late Ernesto

R. Manlavi had never been dissolved prior to his death, she
abandoned the family for more than seventeen (17) years
until he died and lived with other men. It is obvious that she
was not dependent on her legal husband for any support,
financial or otherwise, during that entire period. In fact her
whereabouts were unknown to her family. She never
attempted to communicate with them, even to check up on
the well-being of her only daughter. Such being the case,
Marilou G. Manlavi is not a dependent within the
contemplation of R.A. 8291 as to be entitled to Survivorship
Benefits. Her
application
for
Survivors
Benefits
is,
therefore, DENIED.

Tan v. Ballena
In answer to criminal complaint for violation of SS law, petitioners
interposed the defenses of lack of criminal intent and good faith as
their failure to remit was brought about by alleged economic
difficulties, and they have already agreed to settle their obligations
with the SSS through a memorandum of agreement to pay in
installments.
SC:
As held by the Court of Appeals, the claims of good faith and absence
of criminal intent for the petitioners' acknowledged non-remittance of
the respondents' contributions deserve scant consideration. The
violations charged in this case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a
special law. As such, it belongs to a class of offenses known as mala
prohibita.

Consequently, the Court hereby REAFFIRMS the approval of

Maylenne G. Manlavis application for Survivorship Benefits as
embodied in our November 16, 1999 Resolution, subject to the
modification recommended by the Court Administrator, which is
hereby approved, to wit:
a) EXPUNGE from the Resolution of the Court En Banc
dated November 16, 1999, the proviso subject to the
submission of Declaration of Absence of Marilou
Manlavi;
b) FORFEIT the shares of Marilou Manlavi in the
Survivors Benefits and payment of the money value
of the Terminal Leave accruing the deceased; and
c) DIRECT the Financial Management Office, OCA, to
release the Survivors Benefits and money value of
the Terminal Leave pay due and accruing the late
ERNESTO R. MANLAVI in favor of his legitimate
daughter MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI and the FOUR
(4) illegitimate children under Sections 20 and 21 (a)
of RA 8291 subject to the availability of funds and the
usual clearance requirements.
20. What is the effect of member of GSIS separated for cause
with respect to separation benefit?
Member separated for cause

automatically forfeit

Unless terms of resignation or separation provide otherwise

Member separated not for cause

shall continue to be member & entitled subject to

qualification & other prescription

22. asiapro case, supra

Defenses of lack of criminal intent

On the part of the petitioners, they have not denied their fault in not
remitting the SSS contributions and loan payments of the
respondents in violation of Section 28, paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of
the SSS Law. Instead, petitioners interposed the defenses of lack of
criminal intent and good faith, as their failure to remit was brought
about by alleged economic difficulties, and they have already agreed
to settle their obligations with the SSS through a memorandum of
agreement to pay in installments. As held by the Court of Appeals,
the claims of good faith and absence of criminal intent for the
petitioners' acknowledged non-remittance of the respondents'
contributions deserve scant consideration. The violations charged in
this case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a special law. As such, it
belongs to a class of offenses known as mala prohibita.
The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called
acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact
that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This
distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a
wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in
se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is,
has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the
offender is immaterial.
Thus, the petitioners' admission in the instant case of their violations
of the provisions of the SSS Law is more than enough to establish
the existence of probable cause to prosecute them for the same.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

23. Are laborers continuously assigned to construction

projects as carpenters, masons, etc. compulsorily covered
under SS law?
Chua vs. CA
On 20 August 1985, private respondents filed a Petition with the SSC
for SSS coverage and contributions against petitioner Reynaldo Chua,
owner of Prime Mover Construction Development, claiming that they
were all regular employees of the petitioner in his construction
business.
Private respondents claimed that they were assigned by petitioner in
his various construction projects continuously in the following
capacity: masons, carpenters and fine graders, in petitioner's various
construction projects.
Private respondents alleged that they were illegally dismissed and
that petitioner did not report them to the SSS for compulsory
coverage in flagrant violation of the Social Security Act.
Petitioner: respondents were not regular employees, but project
employees whose work had been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion of which was determined at the time of
their engagement, thus, not entitled to coverage under the SSS.
SSC ruled in favor of private respondents. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether private respondents were entitled to compulsory SSS
coverage.
Ruling: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that the mandatory coverage of
Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, is premised on the existence of
an employer-employee relationship.
There is no dispute that private respondents were employees of
petitioner. Petitioner himself admitted that they worked in his
construction projects, although the period of their employment was
allegedly co-terminus with their phase of work. Even without such
admission from petitioner, the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties can easily be determined by the
application of the "control test,"
the elements of which are
enumerated above. It is clear that private respondents are
employees of petitioner, the latter having control over the results of
the work done, as well as the means and methods by which the
same were accomplished. Suffice it to say that regardless of the
nature of their employment, whether it is regular or project, private
respondents are subject of the compulsory coverage under the SSS
Law, their employment not falling under the exceptions provided by

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

the law. This rule is in accord with the Court's ruling in Luzon
Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS to the effect that all employees, regardless
of tenure, would qualify for compulsory membership in the SSS,
except those classes of employees contemplated in Section 8(j) of
the Social Security Act
Despite the insistence of petitioner that they were project
employees, the facts show that as masons, carpenters and
fine graders in petitioner's various construction projects, they
performed work which was usually necessary and desirable to
petitioner's business which involves construction of roads and
bridges.
Moreover, while it may be true that private respondents were
initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the
repeated re-hiring and continuing need for their services over
a long span of time the shortest being two years and the
longest being eight have undeniably made them regular
employees. This Court has held that an employment ceases to
be co-terminus with specific projects when the employee is
continuously rehired due to the demands of the employer's
business and re-engaged for many more projects without
interruption.
24. They (taxi drivers) are EE just like jeepney drivers are EE to their
operators. Even if they receive "boundary basis" compensation there
is still an ER-EE relationship. The method of fixing compensation is
not determinative of an EE-ER relationship. As long as the ER
exercises the right to control (not necessarily actual control), there is
EE-ER relationship.
Taxi Driver compulsorily covered?
Based on an Article I found
Allow me, however to present the following comments and
observations relative to your proposal:
1. Legal basis for SSS coverage of drivers of public transport
The legal basis for the compulsory SSS coverage of drivers of public
transport may be derived from SSS Circular No. 79-T published on 03
April 1970 (Annex A). Said circular provides the bases of coverage,
premium contribution, and allowable daily deduction or earnings of
jeepney drivers of jeepney operators, salient features of which are as
follows:
a. Basis of Coverage - Jeepney drivers are employees of jeepney
operators and, as such are required under the Social Security Law to
be reported for coverage by their employee (Please refer to the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of the NATIONAL LABOR UNION vs.
DINGLASAN, L-7945, 23 March 1956).
b. Basis of Premium Contribution - If the earnings of jeepney driver
cannot be determined by records, then the basis of the premium

contribution to the SSS is the minimum wage as authorized by Law

(Please refer to Supreme Court ruling in the case of MALATE TAXICAB
7 GARAGE, INC. vs. THE CIR AND NIU (G.R. NO. 1-8718, PROM. May
11, 1956, 52 O.G, No. 6,p. 3034)

BASIS OF COVERAGE The Supreme Court held that jeepney drivers are employees of
jeepney operators in the case of the NATIONAL LABOR UNION vs.
DINGLASAN, L-7945, 23 March 1956. The Court RULED:
"...The drivers did not invest a single centavo in the business and the
respondent is the exclusive owner of the jeeps. The management of
the business is in the respondent's hands. For even if the drivers of
the jeeps take material possession of the jeeps, still the respondent
as owner thereof and holder of a certificate of public convenience is
entitled to exercise, as he does and under the law he must,
supervision over the drivers by seeing to it that they follow the route
prescribed by the Public Service Commission and rules and
regulations promulgates by its as regards their operation. X X X The
only features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee
between the respondent and the drivers, x x x x are the fact that he
does not pay them fixed wage but their compensation is the excess
of the total amount of fares earned or collected by them over and
above the amount x x x which they agreed to pay to the respondent,
the owner of the jeeps, and the fact that the gasoline burned by the
jeeps is for the account of the drivers. These two features are not,
however, sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from
the employer-employee, x x x. Not having any interest in the
business because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of
the jeeps and did not participate in the management thereof, their
service as drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution o the
business the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot be sustained. In
the lease of chattels the lessor loses control over the chattel leased
although the lessee cannot make sure thereof, for he would be
responsible for damages to the lessor should he do so. In this case,
there is a supervision and sort of control that owner of the jeeps
exercise over the drivers.. It is an attempt by ingenious scheme to
withdraw the the relationship between the owner of the laws enacted
to promote industrial peace."
As such employees, jeepney drivers are therefore covered under Sec.
10 of the Social Security Law.
25. There is also a question about independent contractor visa-vis labor only contractor? That means substantial
capitalization requirement under the LC

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Ans: You can avail the benefits and be a member under SSS law if
there exist an employer- employee relationship. In labor only
contractor, there could exist an employer- employee relationship
between the contractor- employee and the principal. The principal is
bound to register the contractor employee under the SSS law, and
pay its contribution. The principal has power of control to the
contractor employees and not the labor only contractor because the
latter is only an agent of the principal.
Independent contractors and principal do not have
employer- employee relationship because the principal has no power
to control the means and tools in making the job done. The principal
is only concerned on the result. However, they can be a member of
SSS under the category of self- employed depending on their wage
earned.
Both do not have substantial capitalization. Under the Labor
Code, two (2) elements must exist for a finding of labor-only
contracting: (a) the person supplying workers to an employer does
not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and (b) the
workers recruited and placed by such persons are performing
activities directly related to the principal business of such employer.

26-27. How many years prescriptive period under SSS law

Sickness Benefit
Prescribed period in filing a claim of a member
confined in
hospital/home:
For hospital, claim for benefit must be filed within 1 year from
last day of confinement;
For home, 1 year from start of illness.
Failure to file the claim within the prescribed period will result to
denial of claim.
Disability Benefit
10 years from the date of occurrence of disability
Right to Institute (NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION)
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. (normally
from the time of discovery)
Memorize the requisites of Maternity Leave Benefits, in bar,
even the contribution requirement, 3 monthly contribution
within the 12 month period immediately preceding the birth
1. She has paid at least three monthly contributions within the 12month 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. For example: SSS member gives birth in
December 2006. The semester of contingency would be from July
2006 to December 2006. The 12-month period before th

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

2006.

e semester of contingency would be from July 2005 to June

28-29. GSIS vs. NLRC SECURITY GUARDS

o
o

Private respondents were security guards of a security

agency assigned to Tacloban branch of GSIS.
The security guards thereafter filed an illegal dismissal
against the agency and GSIS, separation pay, salary
differential, 13th month and unpaid salary
GSIS filed the present petition contending the error
committed because it is exempt from execution per
charter.
SC:

The fact that there is no actual and direct

employer-employee
relationship
between
petitioner and respondents does not absolve
the former from liability for the latters
monetary claims. When petitioner contracted
DNLs security services, petitioner became an
indirect employer of respondents, pursuant to
Article 107 of the Labor Code.

After DNL Security failed to pay the

respondents the correct wages and other
monetary benefits, petitioner, as principal,
became jointly and severally liable, as
provided in Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor
Code.

Citing GSIS vs. RTC of Pasig, SC did not

agree with petitioner that the enforcement of
the decision is impossible because its charter
unequivocally exempts it from execution.

Petitioners charter should not be used to

evade its liabilities to its employees, even to
its indirect employees, as mandated by the
Labor Code.

Factual background: As a covered employer under the Social

Security Law, it is the obligation of Impact Corporation under the
provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the SSS Law to deduct from
its duly covered employees monthly salaries their shares as premium
contributions and remit the same to the SSS, together with the
employers shares of the contributions to the petitioner, for and in
their behalf. Impact Corporation failed to do so.
From all indications,
the corporation has
already
been
dissolved. Respondents are now going after petitioner who is the
only surviving director of Impact Corporation.

Petitioners contention: Petitioner also challenges the finding of

the Court of Appeals that under Section 28(f) of the Social Security
Law, a mere director or officer of an employer corporation, and not
necessarily a managing director or officer, can be held liable for the
unpaid SSS premium contributions. She is, in effect, contending that
only a managing director may be held liable under the SSS Law.
Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law provides the
following:
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this Act be
committed by an association, partnership,
corporation or any other institution, its managing
head, directors or partners shall be liable to the
penalties provided in this Act for the offense.
SC Ruling: The Court of Appeals rightly held that petitioner, as a
director of Impact Corporation, is among those officers covered by
Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law.
Petitioner
invokes
the
rule
in
statutory
construction
called ejusdem generic; that is, where general words follow an
enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and
specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their
widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or
things of the same kind or class as those specifically
mentioned. According to petitioner, to be held liable under Section
28(f) of the Social Security Law, one must be the managing head,
managing director, or managing partner. This Court though finds
no need to resort to statutory construction. Section 28(f) of the
Social Security Law imposes penalty on:

CASES OF DIRECTORS HELD LIABLE UNDER SSS LAW

(1)

the managing head;

Garcia vs SSS

(2)

directors; or

Problem: Lower and appellate courts found Immaculada L. Garcia

(Garcia), the sole surviving director of Impact Corporation, petitioner
herein, liable for unremitted, albeit collected, SSS contributions. She
is now contending that she should not be made liable.

(3)

partners, for offenses committed by a juridical

person

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

The said provision does not qualify that the director or partner should
likewise be a managing director or managing partner. The law is
clear and unambiguous.

Accordingly, petitioner was held liable.

Mendoza vs Republic
Problem: For failure to remit the Social Security System (SSS)
premium contributions of employees of the Summa Alta Tierra
Industries, Inc. (SATII) of which he was president, Romarico J.
Mendoza (petitioner) was convicted of violation of Section 22(a) and
(d) vis--vis Section 28 of R.A. No. 8282 or the Social Security Act of
1997 by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 4. His
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. He is now
contending that he should not be held liable.

Petitioners contention:
Petitioner contended in his motion for reconsideration that
Section 28(f) of the Act which reads:
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this Act be
committed by an association, partnership,
corporation or any other institution, its managing
head, directors or partners shall be liable for the
penalties provided in this Act for the offense.

should be interpreted as follows:

If an association, the one liable is the
managing head; if a partnership, the ones liable
are the partners; and if a corporation, the ones
liable are the directors. (underscoring supplied)
The appellate court denied petitioners motion, hence, the
present petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner maintains, inter alia, that the managing head or
president or general manager of a corporation is not among those
specifically mentioned as liable in the above-quoted Section
28(f). And he calls attention to an alleged congenital infirmity in the
Informationin that he was charged as proprietor and not as director
of SATII.
SC ruling:
The provision of the law being clear and unambiguous, petitioners
interpretation that a proprietor, as he was designated in the

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

Information, is not among those specifically mentioned under Sec.

28(f) as liable, does not lie. For the word connotes management,
control and power over a business entity.
The term managing head in Section 28(f) is used, in its broadest
connotation, not to any specific organizational or managerial
nomenclature. To heed
petitioners
reasoning
would
allow
unscrupulous businessmen to conveniently escape liability by the
creative adoption of managerial titles.

30. RA 8282 SS Law

"(5)Such
other
services
performed
by
temporary and other employees which may be
excluded by regulation of the Commission.
Employees of bona fideindependent contractors
shall not be deemed employees of the employer
engaging the services of said contractors.
SECTION 10.Effective Date of Coverage. Compulsory coverage of
the employer shall take effect on the first day of his operation and
that of the employee on the day of his employment: Provided,
That the compulsory coverage of the self-employed person shall take
effect upon his registration with the SSS.

(j)Employment Any service performed by an employee for his

employer, except
"(1)Employment purely casual and not for
the purpose of occupation or business of
the employer;
"(2)Service performed on or in connection with
an alien vessel by an employee if he is
employed when such vessel is outside the
Philippines;
"(3)Service performed in the employ of the
Philippine Government or instrumentality or
agency thereof;
"(4)Service performed in the employ of a
foreign
government
or
international
organization,
or
their
wholly-owned
instrumentality: Provided, however, That this
exemption
notwithstanding,
any
foreign
government, international organization or their
wholly-owned
instrumentality
employing
workers in the Philippines or employing Filipinos
outside of the Philippines, may enter into an
agreement with the Philippine Government for
the inclusion of such employees in the SSS
except those already covered by their
respective
civil
service
retirement
systems: Provided, further, That the terms of
such agreement shall conform with the
provisions of this Act on coverage and amount
of
payment
of
contributions
and
benefits: Provided, finally, That the provisions
of this Act shall be supplementary to any such
agreement; and

[G.R. No. L-8017. April 30, 1955.]

FEDERICO MANSAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. P.
P.
GOCHECO
LUMBER
CO., defendantappellee.

SYLLABUS
1.EMPLOYER
AND
EMPLOYEE:
WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION; EMPLOYER, WHEN LIABLE. When an
employee suffers personal injury from any accident arising out
of and in the course of his employment . . . his employer shall
pay compensation . . . As to the finding of the court that the
employment of the appellant was merely casual, because it was
not continuous, it was already held by us that it is not the
continuity of employment that renders the employer responsible
but whether the work of the laborer is part of the business or
occupation of the employer. In order that an employer may not
be responsible for any injury to a laborer it is necessary that the
"employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the
occasion or business of the employer."

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYMENT IS PURELY CASUAL.

Casual means occasional, coming without regularity. The work is
purely casual when it is not a part of the business in which the
employer is engaged.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Plaintiff-appellant suffered injuries in the middle finger of his

right hand while stacking lumber in the lumber yard of the
defendant. As a member of a group of laborers doing that job for
the defendant company, he was not employed directly by the
company, but worked under a contractor by the name of Pablo
Manansala who, in representation of the group of laborers,
contracted the stacking of lumber in the lumber yard at P4.00 per
thousand board feet, collected the price of the stacking and
distributed it among the laborers. Manansala and his group did not
work for the defendant alone; they also did similar work for other
lumber yards. Defendant company was not also obliged to employ
Pablo Manansala and his group everytime that it had lumber to be
stacked up, but could call other contractors or groups of laborers.
The defense of the defendant, which was sustained by the court a
quo, is that plaintiff-appellant was a purely casual laborer, employed
by what is known in law as an independent contractor, Pablo
Manansala, who had direction and control of plaintiff-appellant
without interference on the part of the defendant.

As to the finding of the court that the employment of the plaintiffappellant was merely casual, because it was not continuous, we have
already had occasion to decide that it is not the continuity of
employment that renders the employer responsible, but
whether the work of the laborer is part of the business or
occupation of the employer. In the case of Calupitan vs. Vda. e
Hijos de Angel Jose (40 Off. Gaz. [11th Sup.], p. 31 cited in
appellant's brief, p. 12), the deceased laborer was hired only for one
trip, yet we held that the work was not purely casual because the
trip, was undertaken in two or three times a year for the
accommodation of the defendant's customers and may be regarded
as part of the employer's activities.
It will be noted that in order that an employer may not be
responsible for an injury to a laborer it is necessary that the
"employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the
occupation or business of the employer." Casual means
occasional, coming without regularity. The work is purely
casual when it is not a part of the business in which the
employer is engaged. The clause "is not for the purposes of the
occupation or business of the employer" complements and explains
the term "purely casual". In a sawmill, for example, if a power
unit running the mill gets out of order and a mechanic is
contracted to fix the engine, the work of the mechanic would
be considered as purely casual, because the reparation of the
mill is not the actual work or business of the sawmill but the
sawing of lumber. But the piling up of lumber is work directly

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

10

connected with the business of a lumber yard. Lumber must

be sorted and piled up in groups according to sizes to
facilitate handling and sale. The piling up of lumber is,
therefore, an ordinary part of the work in a lumber yard.

The case at bar is similar or parallel to that of stevedores unloading

cargo from a ship. The fact that the stevedores work under the
control of a contractor, who pays them, and that they may seek other
work under different carriers, and their work covers a very short
period of time as to each carrier, does not exempt the carrier who
had employed them in the unloading of the cargo from paying
compensation for death or injuries received by them because the
unloading of the cargo is an ordinary part of a carrier's duty.
31.

Compulsory

Coverage

3.
Coverage
of
Self-Employed
Persons
A self-employed person, regardless of trade, business or occupation,
with an income of at least P1,000 a month and not over 60 years of
age, should register with the SSS. Included, but not limited to are
the following self-employed persons: a. self-employed professionals;
b. business partners, single proprietors, and board directors; c.
actors, actresses, directors, scriptwriters and news correspondents
who do not fall within the definition of the term "employee;" d.
Professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys; e. farmers and
fisherfolks; f. workers in the informal sector such as cigarette
vendors, watch-your-car-boys, hospitality girls, among others.
Effectivity is upon payment of the first valid contribution, in case of
initial coverage. It does not mean that when you secure SS number,
you are automatically covered as a member. One is considered a
member if one have paid at least one month contribution.

1.
Coverage
of
Employees
a. A private employee, whether permanent, temporary or provisional,
not
over
60
years
of
age.
b. Household-helper earning at least One Thousand (1,000)
Philippine Peso a month is compulsory covered starting September 1,
1993.
c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard contract of
employment between the seafarer and the manning agency, which,
together with the foreign ship owner, act as employers.
d. An employee of a foreign government, international organization
or their wholly-owned instrumentality based in the Philippines, which
enetered into an administrative agreement with the SSS for the
coverage
of
its
Filipino
workers.
e. The parent, spouse or child below 21 years old of the owner of a
single
proprietorship
business.
Effectivity for an employee starts on the first day of employment.
2.
Coverage
of
Employers
a. An employer, or any person who uses the service of another
person in business, trade and industry, or any other undertaking. A
social, civic, professional, charitable and other non-profit
organization which hire the services of employees are considered as
"employers."
b. A foreign government, international organization or its whollyowned instrumentality such as embassy in the Philippines, may enter
into an administrative agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its
Filipino
employees.
Effectivity is on the first day the employer hires the employee.
Employer is given 30 days to report the employee for coverage to the
SSS through the SSS Form R-1A (Employment Report).

Caveat: Anyone who claims this document as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the Law of Karma.

2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-

11