phil blooming mills vs sss- phil blooming mills demanded for a refund of their contribution for their

japanese technicians who were terminated sss denied the refund and phil blooming mills stated that
alien employees and their employers are entitled to proportionate rebate of their contribution once
employees leave in accordance with rule 9 of the rules amd regulations of sss but rules and regulations
rule 1 of sss amended and taken out the provision of return of premiums. phil blooming argued that the
amendment was. violation to non impairment of contracts of constitution and the corresponding
premium has a suspensive condition that when the employee leaves there will be a return of premiums
since phil blooming states that the employees membership in sss constituted a contract with the sss
members. sc stated that sss coverage is a law with the intent to give coverage to the workmen and not a
contract. It may be argued, however, that while the amendment to the Rules may have been lawfully
made by the Commission and duly approved by the President on January 14, 1958, such amendment
was only published in the November 1958 issue of the Official Gazette, and after appellants’
employment had already ceased. Suffice it to say, in this regard, that under Article 2 of the Civil Code,5
the date of publication of laws in the Official Gazette is material for the purpose of determining their
effectivity, only if the statutes themselves do not so provide. the amendment of rules and reg of sss is
effective at the time when the president signs the amendment on 1-1958 despite delayed publication in
11-1958 the amendment is still effective and legal at the time the japanese technicians were terminated
on 10-1958.