VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC.

, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondent-appellee.

ISSUE: whether or not Circular No. 22 is a rule or regulation, as contemplated in Section 4(a) of
Republic Act 1161 empowering the Social Security Commission "to adopt, amend and repeal
subject to the approval of the President

FACTS: Social Security Commission issued its Circular No. 22 stating that:
Effective November 1, 1958, all Employers in computing the premiums due the System,
will take into consideration and include in the Employee's remuneration all bonuses and overtime
pay, as well as the cash value of other media of remuneration. All these will comprise the
Employee's remuneration or earnings, upon which the 3-1/2% and 2-1/2% contributions will be
based, up to a maximum of P500 for any one month.
Petitioner Objected, questioning the validity of the circular for lack of authority on the part of the
Social Security Commission to promulgate it without the approval of the President and for lack of
publication in the Official Gazette.
HELD: Circular No. 22 in question was issued by the Social Security Commission, in view of the
amendment of the provisions of the Social Security Law defining the term "compensation" to wit:
Republic Act No. 1792 (f) Compensation All remuneration for employment include the cash
value of any remuneration paid in any medium other than cash except that part of the
remuneration in excess of P500.00 received during the month.
Circular No. 22 purports merely to advise employers-members of the System of what, in the light
of the amendment of the law, they should include in determining the monthly compensation of
their employees upon which the social security contributions should be based, and that such
circular did not require presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette for its
effectivity. It hardly need be said that the Commission's interpretation of the amendment
embodied in its Circular No. 22, is correct.
There is a distinction between an administrative rule or regulation and an administrative
interpretation of a law whose enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body.
As to rules and regulations:
-

it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law;
when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the
administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith
may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law because statutes are usually
couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and
sanctions intended by the legislature.

As to administrative interpretations:
-

when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing

law;

JAIME N. GAPAYAO, Petitioner,

vs.
ROSARIO FULO,
Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where
the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continue while such actually exists.
Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision: (1) regular employees or
those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of their engagement, or
those whose work or service is seasonal in nature and is performed for the duration of the season; and (3) casual
employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.55
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal
employees may be considered as regular employees.56 Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from
time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are
temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed.57 They are
in regular employment because of the nature of their job,and not because of the length of time they have worked.
The rule, however, is not absolute. In Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food &
General Trade,59 the Court held that seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not be
considered regular employees. Similarly, in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC,60 it was held that when seasonal employees
are free to contract their services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees.
For regular employees to be considered as such, the primary standard used is the reasonable connection between
the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer.61 This test has been explained
thoroughly in De Leon v. NLRC,

The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable

connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering
the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or
trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if
the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and
continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability
of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but only with
respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, Petitioner,
vs.
RIZAL POULTRY and LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO,
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE NLRC AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, FINDING NO
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, CONSTITUTES RES JUDICATA AS A RULE ON
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT AS TO PRECLUDE THE RELITIGATION OF THE ISSUE OF
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN A SUBSEQUENT CASE FILED BEFORE THE PETITIONER. (In
essence, the main issue to be resolved is whether res judicata applies so as to preclude the SSC
from resolving anew the existence of employer-employee relationship, which issue was previously
determined in the NLRC case)

HELD: Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).14
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the
second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this
instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.15
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first
judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to
matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment."
Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not
the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. Thus, if a particular point or
question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular
point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the
second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is
not required but merely identity of issue.17
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision
must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition

of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action,
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as
between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata
as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies.18
Verily, the principle of res judicata in the mode of "conclusiveness of judgment" applies in this case. The first
element is present in this case. The NLRC ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It was a judicial
affirmation through a decision duly promulgated and rendered final and executory when no appeal was
undertaken within the reglementary period. The jurisdiction of the NLRC, which is a quasi-judicial body, was
undisputed. Neither can the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the NLRC decision be the subject of a
dispute. The NLRC case was clearly decided on its merits; likewise on the merits was the affirmance of the
NLRC by the Court of Appeals.