Professional Documents
Culture Documents
House Tyrell
of pecuniary estimation beyond the competence of the Commission, as it falls assuming primacy in the overall consideration. The most important element is
under the jurisdiction of the Regional trial Court. the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. All of the compulsory coverage under the SSS Law, their employment not falling
elements are present in this case. under the exceptions provided by 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
It is the respondent cooperative which has the sole control over the manner and of tenure, would qualify for compulsory membership in the SSS, except those
means of performing the services under the Service Contracts with Stanfilco as classes of employees contemplated in Section 8(j) of the Social Security Act.
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 When you look at SS Law, there are employments which are covered and therefore
representatives at Stanfilco. employer must report and employee must be reported. There are also
employments which are not covered under the SS law. These are the exceptions. It
Wages are defined as remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of is provided in Section 8 (j). [SEE PAGE 3, NUMBER 7 OF TRANSCRIPT]
being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained, on a time, task,
piece or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is So based on this, when you are given a question of whether a person is an
payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employee under SS Law and therefore that person should be reported for
employment for work done or to be done, or for service rendered or to be compulsory coverage, you look at the exceptions. If that person does not fall under
rendered. In this case, the weekly stipends or the so-called shares in the service the exceptions then you apply the law in SSS- All employees regardless of the
surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its owners-members were in nature of their employment are covered.
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 4. FARM WORKERS; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELTIONSHIP (Gapayao v. Fulo)
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 Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have
in the service surplus are indeed wages, because these are given to the owners- consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular
members as compensation in rendering services to respondent cooperatives client, employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to
Stanfilco. 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
3. “PROJECT EMPLOYEES” (Chua v CA) or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of
the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they have worked.
Petitioner contends that the respondents are not regular employees and are thus,
not included in the mandatory coverage of the SSS. The rule, however, is not absolute. In Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of
Sugarcane Workers-Food & General Trade, the Court held that seasonal workers
Petitioner himself admitted that they worked in his construction projects, who have worked for one season only may not be considered regular employees.
although the period of their employment was allegedly co-terminus with their Similarly, in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, it was held that when seasonal employees are
phase of work. Even without such admission from petitioner, the existence of an free to contract their services with other farm owners, then the former are not
employer-employee relationship between the parties can easily be determined by regular employees.
the application of the "control test." Suffice it to say that regardless of the nature of
their employment, whether it is regular or project, private respondents are subject
9. DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” For example: SSS member gets sick in October 2006 for 20 days. a. The semester of
sickness would be from July 2006 to December 2006. b. The 12-month period
Section 8. (c) Employer – any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who would be from July 2005 to June 2006 (where the six highest monthly salary
carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or activity credits will be chosen)
of any kind and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as
regards the employment, except the Government and any of its political In no case shall the daily sickness benefit be paid longer than one hundred twenty
subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned or (120) days in one (1) calendar year, nor shall any unused portion of the one
controlled by the Government: Provided; that a self-employed person shall be hundred twenty (120) days of sickness benefit granted under this section be
both employee and employer at the same time. carried forward and added to the total number of compensable days allowable in
the subsequent year.
10. SICKNESS BENEFIT – NUMBER OF DAYS THAT CAN BE PAID
11. MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFIT
A daily cash allowance paid for the number of days a member is unable to work
due to sickness or injury. The amount is equivalent to 90% of the member’s It is a daily cash allowance granted to female member who was unable to work
average daily salary credit. due to childbirth or miscarriage. It is not necessary that female is legally married.
It is equivalent to 100% of member’s average daily salary credit multiplied by:
Requirements:
He is unable to work due to sickness or injury and confined either in a hospital 60 days for normal delivery or miscarriage
or at home for at least 4 days; 78 days for caesarian section delivery.
12. WHO DETERMINES E-E? Contingency — The retirement, death, disability, injury or sickness, and maternity
of the member.
The question on the existence of an employer-employee relationship for the
purpose of determining the coverage of the Social Security System is explicitly The benefits which the employer advances are sickness benefit and maternity
excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and falls within the jurisdiction of the leave benefit.
SSC which is primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising under the
Social Security Law of 1997. (Asiapro case) Other benefits:
The coverage of the SS Law is based on the existence on such relationship. A. Retirement – It is a cash benefit either in monthly pension or lump sum paid to
Meaning, if there is no relationship, there is no compulsory coverage. That is the a member who can no longer work due to old age.
rule.
Who may qualify?
In Chua vs. CA, the question of whether these laborers assigned in the construction For an employee – on the first day of employment
projects are compulsorily covered by SS Law. SC ruled that they do not fall under For an employer – on the first day the employer hires employee/s
the exceptions; they are covered regardless of the nature of their employment a. Employer is given 30 days from date of employment to report the
thus the SC found that they performed work which was usually necessary and employee for coverage to SSS.
desirable. Pursuant to Chua, if you don’t fall under the exception thus you apply For self-employed – upon payment of first valid contribution, in case of initial
the rule that ALL EMPLOYEES, REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF EMPLOYEMENT coverage.
IS COVERED
For how long will the dependent child receive the pension? Ruling: Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should
When the child reaches 21 years old, gets married, gets employed or dies. establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Since petitioner is
However, the dependents’ pension is granted for life to children who are over 21 disqualified to be a beneficiary and because the deceased has no legitimate child,
10 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
22. LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT AND GOOD FAITH AS DEFENSES
Lo v. CA
Private respondent’s application was denied because the SSS records showed Tan v. Ballena
that he became a member only in 1983, and contributions in his favor were In an answer to criminal complaint for violation of SS law, petitioners interposed
remitted only from October 1983 to September 1984. As private respondent the defenses of lack of criminal intent and good faith as their failure to remit was
knew that SSS contributions were deducted from his salary since compulsory brought about by alleged economic difficulties, and they have already agreed to
SSS coverage took effect in 1957, he filed a petition with the Social Security settle their obligations with the SSS through a memorandum of agreement to pay
Commission against Jose Lo and his son Rafael Lo, who took over the in installments.
management of the company. The Commission upheld private respondent's
claim and ordered petitioner and Jose Lo to remit to the SSS the unpaid SC: As held by the Court of Appeals, the claims of good faith and absence of
contribution in favor of private respondent, including penalties and charges. criminal intent for the petitioners' acknowledged non-remittance of the
respondents' contributions deserve scant consideration. The violations charged
SC: The provision of Section 22 (b)(2), of Republic Act No. 1161 is clear that the in this case pertain to the SSS Law, which is a special law. As such, it belongs to a
period of prescription commences to run only upon the discovery of the class of offenses known as mala prohibita.
violation, which took place in 1985. When the complaint was filed on August 14,
1985, less than one year had passed since private respondent discovered the Only inquiry is, has the law been violated? Thus, the petitioners’ admission in the
delinquency. Therefore, the claim was timely instituted. instant cases 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
21. CONSENT OF SSS ON FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTION same.
Sec. 28 (i) – Criminal action arising from a violation of the provisions of this Act 23. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
may be commenced by the SSS or the employee concerned either under this Act or
in appropriate cases under the RPC: Provided, That such criminal action may be The right to institute the necessary action against the employer may be
filed by the SSS in the city or municipality where the SSS office is located, if the commenced within twenty (20) years from the time the delinquency is known or
violation was committed within its territorial jurisdiction or on Metro Manila at the assessment is made by the SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the
the option of the SSS. case may be.
Is the consent of SSS required before any criminal case may be filed? CAVEAT: DI KO SURE ANI KUNG UNSAY PASABOT NI SIR SORRY NA PO
No, because Section 28 (i) states that a “criminal action arising from a violation of
the provisions of this Act may be commenced by the SSS or the employee 24. IS A DIRECTOR LIABLE? (GARCIA V. SSC)
concerned either under this Act or in appropriate cases under the Revised Penal
Code.” Section 28 (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.
11 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
SSC found Garcia, the sole surviving director of Impact Corporation, petitioner MR: RA No. 9903 (Social Security Condonation Law) creates two classifications of
herein, liable for unremitted SSS contributions. The issue is whether or not employers delinquent in remitting the SSS contributions of their employees: (1)
petitioner, as the only surviving director of Impact Corporation, can be made those delinquent employers who pay within The six (6)-month period (the former
solely liable for the corporate obligations of Impact Corporation pertaining to group), and (2) those delinquent employers who pay outside of this availment
unremitted SSS premium contributions and penalties therefore. period (the latter group). Waiver of accrued penalties: derived from the last
proviso of Section 4 of RA No. 9903.
Court said yes. Section 28(f) is clear and unambiguous. The said provision does
not qualify that the director or partner should likewise be a "managing director" The dispositive portion provides: The Court AFFIRMS the petitioner's conviction
or "managing partner.“ for violation of Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No.
8282, and the petitioner is thus sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four
Although a corporation once formed is conferred a juridical personality separate (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20)
and distinct from the persons comprising it, it is but a legal fiction introduced for years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In light of Section 4 of Republic Act No.
purposes of convenience and to subserve the ends of justice. The concept cannot 9903, the petitioner's liability for accrued penalties is considered WAIVED.
be extended to a point beyond its reasons and policy, and when invoked in Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court transmits the case to the
support of an end subversive of this policy, will be disregarded by the courts. Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant
of executive clemency to the petitioner.
25. MANAGING HEAD (MENDOZA V. PEOPLE)
26. NOVATION (SSS V. DOJ)
The Information against petitioner reads:
Facts: The Martels were charged by the Prosecutor’s Office with nonremittance of
That sometime during the month of August 1998 to July 1999, in the City of SSS contributions. At first, they offered a parcel of land. However, later on, they
Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the offered computer-related services.
said accused, being then the proprietor of Summa Alta Tierra Industries,
Inc., duly registered employer with the Social Security System (SSS), did then The Court held that novation was inapplicable in this case. This Court first
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and/or refuse to remit the recognized the possibility of applying the concept of novation to criminal cases in
SSS premium contributions in favor of its employees amounting to People v. Nery, involving a case for Estafa. In that case, the Court observed that
P421,151.09 to the prejudice of his employees. although novation is not one of the means recognized by the Revised Penal Code
to extinguish criminal liability, it may "prevent the rise of criminal liability or to
Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 22(a) and (d) in relation to Sec. 28 cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction," provided the
of Republic Act No. 8282, as amended novation takes place before the filing of the Information with the trial court.
The term "managing head" in Section 28 (f) is used, in its broadest connotation, Thus, novation has been invoked to reverse convictions in cases where an
not to any specific organizational or managerial nomenclature. To heed underlying contract initially defined the relation of the parties such as the contract
petitioner's reasoning would allow unscrupulous businessmen to conveniently in sale on commission in Estafa cases or the contract in sale of goods in cases of
escape liability by the creative adoption of managerial titles.
12 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
violation of the Trust Receipts Law. Further, the party invoking novation must Who have not reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years
prove that the new contract did indeed take effect.
ARE JUDGES COVERED?
Only covered for purpose of life insurance
II. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM ACT OF 1997 - R.A. Who are not covered
8291 Employees who have separate retirement schemes under special laws and are
therefore covered by their respective retirement laws, such as the members of
1. JURISDICTION the Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions, and other similarly situated
government officials;
SEC. 30. Settlement of Disputes – The GSIS shall have original and exclusive (Judges and Justices are only covered for purposes of life insurance but beyond
jurisdiction to settle any disputes arising under this Act and any other laws that they are not covered)
administered by the GSIS. Uniformed members of AFP & PNP including BJMP
Those who are not receiving basic pay or salary (for example Barangay
GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under RA Officials)
8291 with respect to: Contractuals who have no employer and employee relationship with the
Coverage agencies they serve
Entitlement to benefits Services as a consultant (compensation is in the form of honoraria, their
Collection and payment of contributions payment is not fixed)
Any other matter related to any or all of the foregoing which is necessary for
their determination 3. CREDITABLE SERVICE
Compulsory for all employees: (ALL ELEMENTS MUST CONCUR) SC: Aside from having been rendered part-time in said agencies, the said
Appointive or elective positions were without compensation as defined in Section 2 (i) of R.A. No.
Whether temporary, casual, permanent or contractual w/ e-e relationship (so 8291.
those under job orders are not covered)
Who are receiving basic pay or salary but not per diems, honoraria or
allowances; and
13 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
4. WHO IS A DEPENDENT LEGITIMATE CHILD • Allocation of at least 40% of the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) to member Loans
Any legitimate, legitimated and/or legally adopted child, including any illegitimate NEW BENEFITS
child, who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, who has not attained the age of Unemployment benefit
Separation benefit
majority, or being at the age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of self-
support due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to age of majority. a. Unemployment Benefit
5. NEW BENEFITS; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES IN CASE OF SUVIVORSHIP 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
Contingencies compensable from reorganization.
• Retirement
• Separation Who is eligible?
• Unemployment Permanent employee who has paid 12 monthly contributions.
• Disability Duration of benefit – depends on length of service ranges from 2 mos. to a
• Survivorship maximum of 6 mos
• Death (Life Insurance and Funeral) Equivalent of benefit – 50% of the average monthly compensation
Options – Those who have more than 15 years service may either avail of
There is no life insurance in SSS but there is life insurance in GSIS. There is a new retirement or separation benefits as the case may be.
law for the National Prosecution Service so Fiscals now are covered by Separate
Retirement law so they are not covered by GSIS but they are covered in so far as b. Separation Benefit
for life insurance.
Separation benefit and Unemployment benefit is not in the SSS. There is no A cash payment of 18 times the Basic Monthly Pension at time of separation and a
maternity benefit in GSIS. life pension to start at the age of 60 will be given to those who separate from the
service with at least 15 years of service and are below 60 years of age.
Improvement of existing benefits
Under PD 1146, separated member will have to wait until he is 60 years of age to
• Increase in Average Monthly Compensation (AMC) Limit: from AMC limit of receive any separation benefit.
P3,000 to P10,000
• Increase in the Revalued Average Monthly Compensation (RAMC): from P140 to Who are eligible?
P700 Types:
• Full enjoyment of 5-year lump sum benefit (no more discounted per PD 1146 1. rendered at least 3 years but less than 15 years
where retiree receives only 52.17 months while it is full 60 months at present) - (cash payment equivalent to 100% of Average Monthly Compensation for
• Liberalization of eligibility requirements (liberal construction in favor of the every year of service payable upon reaching 60 or upon separation
retiree)
14 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
whichever comes later if not receiving monthly pension from permanent total Evaluation of disability as a contingency is vested solely in GSIS ( IRR, Sec. 9.3.1)
disability) General condition for entitlement is that the disability was not due to
2. rendered at least 15 years & who is below 60 at time of resignation/separation misconduct, notorious negligence, habitual intoxication or willful intention to
- (cash payment equivalent to 15 times the basic Monthly Pension payable
kill himself or another (IRR, Sec. 9.3.2)
upon separation plus monthly pension starting 60)
The 2010 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation is silent on the cause for Permanent Total Disability
separation. • A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled when he/she is in the
service and has paid at least 180 monthly contributions (monthly income benefit
PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES IN CASE OF SURVIVORSHIP for life equivalent to basic monthly pension plus cash payment equivalent to 18
times his basic monthly pension effective on date of disability)
Survivorship – Those granted to surviving and qualified beneficiaries of the
deceased member or pensioner to cushion them against the adverse economic, • A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled are eligible when (a)
psychological and emotional loss resulting from the death of a wage earner or he is in the service at time of disability or (b) separated from the service and has
pensioner. paid at least 36 monthly contributions within the last 5 years immediately
preceding the disability or has paid a total of at least 180 monthly contributions
Who are eligible? (monthly income benefit for life equivalent to the basic monthly pension)
• If at time of death, a member was in the service and has rendered at least 3 years • A member who becomes permanently and totally disabled when he is separated
of service (primary beneficiaries to receive survivorship pension plus cash
from service with at least 3 years of service but has not paid 36 monthly
payment; secondary beneficiaries or legal heirs entitled to cash payment)
• If at time of death, a member was in the service with less than 3 years of service contributions within the last 5 years is still eligible (cash payment equivalent to
or was separated from the service with at least 3 years of service and has paid 36 100% of the AMC) for every year of service but not less than P12,000)
monthly contributions within the 5-year period immediately preceding his death
or has paid a total of at least 180 monthly contributions prior to death (primary Disabilities considered permanent total
beneficiaries to receive survivorship pension plus cash payment; secondary • Complete loss of sight in both eyes
beneficiaries or legal heirs entitled to cash payment) • Loss of two limbs at or above ankle or wrist
• Permanent complete paralysis of 2 limbs
Primary - The legitimate spouse, until he/she remarries, and the dependent
children. In the IRR, it includes Cohabitation or common law relationship. • Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity
• Other cases as may be determined by GSIS
6. DISABILITY
Permanent Partial Disability
Any loss or impairment of the normal functions of the physical or mental faculties • A member who becomes permanently and partially disabled when he is in the
of a member, which reduces or eliminates his capacity to continue with his current service at time of disability or separated from service and has paid 36 monthly
gainful occupation or engage in any other gainful occupation (IRR, Sec. 1.18)
15 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
contributions within the last 5 years immediately preceding the disability or has (b) take the prescribed medication; or
paid a total of at least 180 monthly contributions. (c) have himself/herself confined in a hospital without justifiable reason, when
such confinement is required by the GSIS; or
Temporary Total Disability (d) avail himself/herself of such rehabilitation facilities as may be duly
Accrues or arises when there is complete but temporary incapacity to continue recommended by the GSIS and made available for him/her; or
with a member's present employment or engage in any gainful occupation due to (e) observe such precautionary and/or preventive measures as prescribed by a
the loss or impairment of the normal function of the physical and/or mental physician or expressly required of him/her to prevent the aggravation or
faculties of the member. In effect, this loss or impairment can be reversed to the continuance of his/her disability.
point where the member can continue with his previous employment or engage in (f) report on his/her re-employment.
another gainful occupation.
7. ENTITLEMENT TO PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS (Lledo v. Lledo)
A member who suffers temporary total disability for reasons not due to grave
SC dismissed for the service Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, former branch clerk of court of
misconduct, notorious negligence, habitual intoxication or willful intention to kill
the RTC of QC, Brach 94. Cesar’s wife, Carmeleta, had filed and administrative case
himself or another may be entitled if:
against him, charging the latter with immorality, abandonment and conduct
- he is in service at time of disability and has exhausted sick leave credits; or
unbecoming a public official. During the investigation, it was established that
- if separated, has rendered at least 3 years of service and has paid at least 6
Cesar had left his family to live with another woman with whom he begot children.
monthly contributions in the twelve month period immediately preceding his
He failed to provide support for his family.
disability.
May a government employee, dismissed from the service for cause, be allowed to
A written notice of sickness or injury shall be given by a member or anybody in recover the personal contributions he paid to the Government Service Insurance
his/her behalf within five (5) working days from the date of the occurrence of the System (GSIS)?
contingency.
Sec. 11 (d) of CA 186, as amended, continues to govern case of employees
An application for disability benefits must be filed with the GSIS within Four (4) dismissed for cause and their claims for the return of their personal contributions.
years from the date of the occurrence of the contingency, fully supported by The said law provides:
required papers and documents.
II- Retirement Insurance benefit
FORFEITURE OF DISABILITY BENEFITS IF MEMBER REFUSES OR “(d) Upon dismissal for cause or on voluntary separation, he shall be entitled
DELIBERATELY FAILS TO: only to his own premiums and voluntary deposits, if any, plus interest of 3%
(a) have himself/herself medically treated by a physician when required by the per annum, compounded monthly.”
GSIS; or
16 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
Neither P.D. No. 1146 nor R.A. No. 8291 contains any provision specifically dealing It is clear from the above provision that COA disallowances cannot be deducted
with employees dismissed for cause and the status of their personal contributions. from benefits under RA 8291, as the same are explicitly made exempt by law from
Thus, there is no inconsistency between Section 11 (d) of Commonwealth Act No. such deductions. Retirement benefits cannot be diminished by COA disallowances
in view of the clear mandate of the foregoing provision.
186, as amended, and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1146, and, subsequently, R.A. No. 8291.
The inevitable conclusion then is that Section 11 (d) of Commonwealth Act No. Accordingly, the GSIS interpretation of Section 39 that COA disallowances have
186, as amended, continues to govern cases of employees dismissed for cause and become monetary liabilities of respondents to the GSIS and therefore fall under
their claims for the return of their personal contributions. the exception stated in the law is wrong. No interpretation of the said provision is
necessary given the clear language of the statute. A meaning that does not appear
Finally, it should be remembered that the GSIS laws are in the nature of social nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed
legislation, to be liberally construed in favor of the government employees. The therein by construction.
money subject of the instant request consists of personal contributions made by
the employee, premiums paid in anticipation of benefits expected upon retirement. Moreover, if we are to accept the GSIS interpretation, then it would be
The occurrence of a contingency, i.e., his dismissal from the service prior to unnecessary to single out COA disallowances as among those from which benefits
under RA 8291 are exempt. In such a case, the inclusion of COA disallowances in
reaching retirement age, should not deprive him of the money that belongs to him
the enumeration of exemptions would be a mere surplusage since the GSIS could
from the outset. To allow forfeiture of these personal contributions in favor of the simply consider COA disallowances as monetary liabilities in its favor. Such a
GSIS would condone undue enrichment. construction would empower the GSIS to withdraw, at its option, an exemption
expressly granted by law. This could not have been the intention of the statute.
Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, Cesar is entitled to the return of his
premiums and voluntary deposits, if any, with interest of three per centum per That retirement pay accruing to a public officer may not be withheld and applied
annum, compounded monthly. to his indebtedness to the government has been settled in several cases. In this
case, the Court had to distinguish between the COA disallowances that were
8. COA DISALLOWANCES allowed from those that were not. Since the disallowance only accrued when the
respondents were already retired, it gave rise to a case of solution indebiti.
GSIS vs. COA Nonetheless, it may be recovered not by deducting on the retirement pay, but on
SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien.- The funds and/or the the other assets of the respondents.
properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies
corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, 9. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-
judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) 4 years from date of contingency except life and retirement which do not prescribe.
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 iability,
contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.
17 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
10. SECTION 39; (GSIS v. NLRC) - Security Guards’ Money Claims sector but he cannot qualify. So according to Gamogamo, he has 14 years of service
with GSIS so he can add those years to the present in service so he can retire under
The case revolves around the decision of the NLRC holding GSIS solidarily liable
SSS. But court said “do you qualify under gsis law/retirement? No, because you
for the judgment rendered in favor of the security guards who were considered
have only 14 years. But do you qualify for other benefits? Yes. You can qualify for
their employees because the contractor was declared a labor-only contractor.
separation benefits.” 2 types of sepa – at least 3 under 15, at least 15 not reaching
GSIS argues that the enforcement of the decision is impossible because its charter the age of 60. He was qualified under the first type. Since he qualified, he cannot
unequivocally exempts it from execution. The Court rejected this argument and use RA 7699.
held that GSIS’s charter should not be used to evade its liabilities to its employees, So there is a limitation that if member qualifies in previous system, previous
even to its indirect employees, as mandated under the Labor Code. system credits cannot be added to the present.
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]).
III. PORTABILITY LAW – R.A. 7699
There is no actual transfer. They only get certification and present it. So there is no
actual transfer.
1. WHEN APPLICABLE (Gamogamo v. PNOC)
18 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
govt sector but continued his contribution as self-employed. So simultaneously, he 3. DOCTRINE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
is contributing in SSS and in public sector. That is allowed but there is a limitation.
To be compensable, the claimant must be able to show that the sickness and
The limitation is that the overlapping should only happen once. Dili pwede na
resulting disability or death that the sickness was the result of an occupational
overlap karon and then overlap napud sunod. The second overlapping will not be disease listed under Annex “A” of the Rules on Employee’s Compensation.
considered.
4. THEORY OF INCREASED RISK
Another is does not qualify for old age and other benefits. Normally the scenario is
under retirement. Example, he has only 10 years of service, he lacks 5 years and If the sickness was not so listed under Annex “A”, the claimant must be able to
assume that he has also worked in the private sector and has 5 years of service. show that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant’s
Then, that can be added so that he can qualify for retirement benefits. Now, we working conditions.
should however be careful in this example because even if the member cannot
I noticed that in the Supreme Court, if there is particular disease, the first thing to
qualify for retirement, the member can qualify for the other benefits.
do is to look in Annex “A” if it is listed in the occupational disease. If the cause is
not in Annex A but it is linked then it is compensable. Look at Annex A, if
immediate cause is not one those then proceed with theory no. 2 “Theory of
IV. PD 442, as amended Increased Risk”
The diseases listed in Annex “A” are presumed to be work-related but not every
1. PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY
death resulting therefrom automatically entitles a claimant to death benefits.
Workman’s Compensation Act - This Act works upon the presumption of Annex “A” requires that, for the statutory presumption of causal relation to arise,
it must be established beforehand that the listed disease was contracted under
compensability which means that if the injury or disease “arose out of” and “in the
certain working conditions.
course of” employment, it is presumed that the claim for compensation falls within
the provisions of the law. Simply put, the employee need not present any proof of The following conditions must be satisfied:
causation. It is the employer who should prove that the illness or injury did not 1. The employee’s work must involve the risks described therein
arise out of or in the course of employment. 2. The disease was contracted as a result of the employee’s exposure to the
described risk
2. THEORY OF AGGRAVATION 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other
factors necessary to contract it
All that the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires to entitle claimants to its 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the employee.
benefits is a showing that the nature of the deceased's work and duties did
aggravate his illness as in this case. (Belmonte v. Workmen's Compensation
Commission)
19 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
5. ART. 203, LABOR CODE (PROHIBITION AGAINST DEMAND OR CHARGE 6. MEANING OF “ACCIDENT”
FOR FREE); COMPARE WITH SSS
Unforseen for which the injured party is not legally responsible
ARTICLE 203 OF THE LABOR CODE – “No agent, attorney or other person
7. ECC BOARD RESOLUTIONS
pursuing or in charge of the preparation or filing of any claim for benefit under
this Title shall demand or charge for his services any fee and any stipulation to the ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 12-03-08
contrary shall be null and void. The retention or deduction of any amount from (DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OD DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEEE DUE TO
any benefit granted under this Title for the payment of fees for such services is ASSUALT WHEN THE SAME OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE PERFOMANCE
prohibited. Violation of a provision of this Article shall be punished by a fine of not OF OFFICIAL FUCNTIONS NOTWHITSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE MOTIVE
less than five hundred pesos not more than five thousand pesos, or imprisonment ISPERSONAL IN NATURE)
for not less than six months nor more than one year or both, at the discretion of
To declare the compensability of death of an employee due to assault
the court.” notwithstanding the fact the motive us persona in nature if the same occurred in
any of the following situations, in addition to those provided under Item II of
UNDER SSS – “SECTION 17. Fee of Agents, Attorneys, etc. — No agent, attorney or
Circular No. 03709 dated 22 July 2009:
other person in charge of the preparation, filing or pursuing any claim for benefit 1. The Employee was at his assigned/designated workplace, or at a place where
under this Actshall demand or charge for his services any fee, and any stipulation his work requires him to be;
to the contrary shall be null and void. The retention or deduction of any amount 2. The employee was executing an order from employer regardless of the time and
from any benefit granted under this Act for the payment of fees for such services is pace of the incident, or in the performance of his official functions; or
prohibited: Provided, however, That any member of the Philippine Bar who 3. The employee was “going to or coming from” his workplace, subject to the
appears as counsel in any case heard by the Commission shall be entitled to existing guidelines of the same.
attorney's fees not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the benefits awarded by the
Even if personal in nature ang assault kay compensable gihapon.
Commission, which fees shall not be payable before the actual payment of the
benefits, and any stipulation to the contrary shall be null and void. Any violation of ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 14-02-15
the provisions of this Section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five (COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES OR DEATH OF THE SOLDIERS AND POLICEMEN
hundred pesos (P500.00) nor more than five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), or WHEN RESPONDING TO A CRIME OF SITUATION WHEN THEY ARE NOT AT
imprisonment for not less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year, or both, THEIR ASSIGNED POST.)
at the discretion of the court.”
To declare the compensability of injuries and its resulting disability or death,
Same prohibition on the SSS but allows not more than 10%of benefits awarded for sustained by the soldiers and policemen when responding to a crime situations or
when performing their sworn duties as law enforcers while they are not at their
a lawyer who appears as a counsel in a case heard by SSC.
assigned posts.
20 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
3. The disappearance of the worker, employee or uninformed personnel gives rise
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 15-04-15 to presumption of death.
(DELCARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY EMPLOYEE AT 4. The death of the worker, employee or uninformed personnel arises out of and in
PLACES OF RECREATION WITHIN THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES) the course of the employment.
To declare the compensability of injuries sustained by employees on the places of ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 10-03-45
recreation within the premises of the employer, within an allowed period; (CLARIFYING THE RULES ON PRESCRIPTION)
Paragraph 6.1 of Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068, dated August 5, 1993, is According to the case of Buena Obra vs SSS and Mesa vs. SSS, when a claimant filed
hereby modified or amended to read as follows: a claim for disability or death benefits before the Systems either under the SSS
“Personal Comfort Doctrine “6.1 Acts performed by an employee Law or GSIS Law, the claim for same benefits under the Employee’s Compensation
a. Within the time and space limits of his employment to minister to personal Law should be considered as filed.
comfort such as satisfaction of his thirst, hunger or other demands
b. While on the places of recreation within the employer’s premises, or The filing of disability or death benefits under either the SSS Law or the GSIS Law
c. To protect himself from extreme temperature in a place within the employer’s within 3 years from the time the cause of action accrued would stop the running of
premises, Shall be deemed incidental to his employment and injuries which the the prescriptive period under P.D. 636, as amended.
employee suffered in the performance of such acts shall be considered
compensable and arising out of and in the course of employment. EC claim must be filed within 3 years from:
In case of sickness-time when the employee was unable to report for work
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 15-01-20 Injury-time of the accident
(ADVISORY ON THE DEFINITION OF MISSING PERSONS UDNER EC BOARD Death (Date of Death)
RESILUTION NO. 14-07-20)
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 11-04-10
Advisory is issued in relation to the implementation of Board Resolution No. 14- (SETTING THE RECKONING DATE OF THE THREE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
70-20 (“Guidelines on the Grant of EC benefits due to Calamity or Fatal Event IN THE EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION CLAIMS FOR
Amending for this Purpose Paragraph 5 of Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068”): PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY (PTD))
The following are the series of events which should be considered in the grant of The prescriptive period for filing compensation claims should be reckoned from
EC benefits: the time the employee lost his earning capacity.
1. The word “missing” refers to unknown fate or there is no trace of whereabouts Defenses against EC claim (employer has no participation, so he can’s invoke these
of a worker, employee and uninformed personnel while he/she is in the defenses)
performance of his/her duties during calamities or fatal events. Not work connected or not occupational
2. The worker employee or uninformed personnel was not seen or heard from Limitation (intoxication, etc)
after the lapse of four years from occurrence of the incident. No notice was giver to employer - Art. 212 of LC
Prescription
21 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
ECC BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 12-01-02 was increased by the working conditions of the late Abraham, private respondents
(DECLARING THE COMPENSABILITY OF INJURIES AND ITS RESULTING would not be entitled to compensation.
DISABILITY OR DEATH SUSTAINED BY STAY-IN LOCAL EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
QUARTERS FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYERS) Considering, however, that it is practically undisputed that under the present state
of science, the proof referred by the law to be presented by the deceased private
"Bunkhouse Rule" - ". . . where the employee is required to stay in the premises or respondent claimant was unavailable and impossible to comply with, the
in quarters furnished by the employer, injuries sustained therein are in the course condition must be deemed as not imposed.
of employment regardless of the time the same occurred."
Before the amendment, the law simply did not allow compensation for the ailment
This Commission RESOLVES AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, to declare the of respondent. It is under this set-up that the Raro case was decided. However, as
compensability of injuries, and its resulting disability or death, sustained by stay- the ECC decision noted, the law was amended and now "the present law on
in local employees in their quarters regardless of the time of its occurrence except compensation allows certain diseases to be compensable if it is sufficiently proven
when the disability or death was occasioned by the employee's intoxication, willful that the risk of contracting is increased by the working conditions." It, therefore,
intention to injure or kill himself or another, or notorious negligence as provided now allows compensation subject to requirement of proving by sufficient evidence
under Article 172 of P.D. No. 626, as amended. that the risk of contracting the ailment is increased by the working conditions.
8. COMPENSABILITY As earlier noted, however, in the specific case of respondent, the requirement is
impossible to comply with, given the present state of scientific knowledge. The
GSIS V. CA obligation to present such as an impossible evidence must, therefore, be deemed
In this case, Osteosarcoma is not listed as an occupational disease in the Amended void. Respondent, therefore, is entitled to compensation, consistent with the
Rules on Employees' Compensation. Hence, it is supposed to be upon the claimant social legislation's intended beneficial purpose.
or private respondents to prove by substantial evidence that the risk of
contracting Osteosarcoma was increased by the working conditions of the late ALANO V ECC
Abraham. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable The deceased was waiting for a bus to the school where she works as a principal.
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The records show that However, while waiting, she was bumped by a mini van that resulted to her death.
Abraham failed to present evidence to establish that the development of his The petitioner alleges that the deceased's accident has "arisen out of or in the
ailment was traceable to his working conditions in the Philippine Navy, the now course of her employment." The respondent Commission reiterates its views and
defunct Philippine Constabulary and the PNP. Further, private respondents' contends that the present provision of law on employment injury is different from
allegation in their petition for review with the CA that Abraham, as a rifleman in that provided in the old Workmen's Compensation Act (Act 3428) and is
the Philippine Navy, may have been exposed to elements like a virus which could "categorical in that the injury must have been sustained at work while at the
have contributed to his ailment does not satisfy the requirement of substantial workplace, or elsewhere while executing an order from the employer." We rule in
evidence. The rule is that awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and favor of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the deceased died while going to her
presumptions as the claimant must prove a positive thing. The application of the place of work. She was at the place where, as the petitioner puts it, her job
rules would mean that absent any proof that the risk of contracting the ailment necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. There
22 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
was nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the place of voluminous dusty records and other harmful substances that aggravated her
the accident. She was there because her employment required her to be there. respiratory disease.
LORENZO V GSIS While item 17, Annex "A" of the Amended Rules of Employee's Compensation
The wife of the deceased died due to Cardio-Respiratory Arrest due to Terminal considers lung cancer to be a compensable occupational disease, it likewise
Leukemia. Petitioner, being the surviving spouse, claimed for Employees provides that the employee should be employed as a vinyl chloride worker or a
Compensation death benefits from the GSIS. It was denied on the ground that the plastic worker. In this case, however, Elma did not work in an environment
GSIS Medical Evaluation and Underwriting Department (MEUD) found Rosario's involving the manufacture of chlorine or plastic, for her lung cancer to be
ailments and cause of death, Cardio-respiratory Arrest Secondary to Terminal considered an occupational disease. There was, therefore, no basis for the CA to
Leukemia, a non-occupational diseases contemplated under P.D. No. 626, as simply categorize her illness as an occupational disease without first establishing
amended. the nature of Elma's work. Both the law and the implementing rules clearly state
that the given alternative conditions must be satisfied for a disease to be
Sickness, as defined under Article 167 (1) Chapter I, Title II, Book IV of the Labor compensable.
Code of the Philippines refers to "any illness definitely accepted as an occupational
disease listed by the Employees' Compensation Commission, or any illness caused 9. LIMITATION TO COMPENSABILITY; GSIS V ANGEL
by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased
by working conditions. Section 1. Limitation – No compensation shall be allowed to the employee or his
dependents when the injury, sickness, disability or death was occasioned by any of
It is well to stress that the principles of "presumption of compensability" and the following:
"aggravation" found in the old Workmen's Compensation Act is expressly a. His intoxication – person’s condition in being under the influence of liquor or
discarded under the present compensation scheme. As illustrated in the said Raro prohibited drugs to the extent that his acts, words or conduct are impaired visibly
case, the new principle being applied is a system based on social security as to prevent him from physically and mentally engaging in the duties of his
principle; thus, the introduction of "proof of increased risk." As further declared employment
therein: b. His willful intention to injure or kill himself or another; or
The present system is also administered by social insurance agencies — the c. His notorious negligence – something more than mere or simple negligence;
Government Service Insurance Syatem and Social Security System — under the deliberate act to disregard own personal safety
Employees Compensation Commission. The intent was to restore a sensible
equilibrium between the employer's obligation to pay workmen's 10. VALERIANO V ECC
compensation and the employee's right to receive reparation for
workconnected death or disability. The Court ruled that petitioner's injuries and consequent disability were not
work-connected and thus not compensable. Petitioner was not able to
GSIS V CAPACITE demonstrate solidly how his job as a firetruck driver was related to the injuries he
The deceased was a DAR employee who died of lung cancer. The CA justified the had suffered. That he sustained the injuries after pursuing a purely personal and
compensability of her disease by saying that Elma had been exposed to social function — having dinner with some friends — is clear from the records of
the case. His injuries were not acquired at his work place; nor were they sustained
23 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
while he was performing an act within the scope of his employment or in pursuit Indeed, if a death which occurred almost four and one half years after retirement
of an order of his superior. The Court also ruled that the 24-hour-duty doctrine was held to be within the coverage of the death benefits under PD 626, as in the
cannot be applied to petitioner's case, because he was neither at his assigned work Manuzon case, with more reason should a death which occurred within one year
place nor in pursuit of the orders of his superiors when he met an accident. But after retirement be considered as covered under the same law. A claim for benefit
the more important justification for the Court's stance is that he was not doing an for such death cannot be defeated by the mere fact of separation from service.
act within his duty and authority as a firetruck driver, or any other act of such Further, we agree with the pronouncements of the Court of Appeals that there was
nature, at the time he sustained his injuries. substantial evidence to support respondent's claim. Hence, the degree of proof
required under PD 626 was satisfied, i.e., "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
COVERAGE FORMULA:
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Probability and not
ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings.
“ARISING OUT OF” - upon consideration of all circumstances, a causal connection
between the condition under which the work is required to be performed and AQUINO V. SSS
resulting injury, refers to the origin or cause of the accident (Grocery Man US Navy – congestive heart failure)
In addition, granting petitioner’s claim will set a bad precedent considering that
11. CAN A CLAIM FOR BENEFIT BE DEFEATED BY THE MERE FACT OF 23 years elapsed from the time her husband stopped working at the commissary
SEPARATION FROM SERVICE? store up to the time he died. If we were to grant it, we might unduly burden the
funds of the ECC and jeopardize it with a flood of unsubstantiated claims. Besides,
GSIS V CUANANG the court cannot remain oblivious to the possibility that, within that 23-year
(Teacher – Cardio Pulmonary Arrest with Acute Myocardial Infarction as the period, other factors intervened to cause the death of petitioner’s husband.
antecedent cause, and Bronchial Asthma and Hypertension as underlying causes) Petitioner was thus under an even greater compulsion to proffer evidence to
negate this possibility and establish the casual connection between her husband’s
In the instant case, the wife of the respondent died a year after her retirement. work and his death. The 23-year gap between his separation from employment in
Clearly, the period between her retirement and demise was less than one year. 1977 and his death in 2000 was a gaping hole in petitioner’s claim.
24 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation
ECC v. SANICO
Prescription not to be reckoned when PTB became known but from time employee
12. “PARENTS” AS BENEFICIARIES (BARTOLOME V SSS) lost his earning capacity (termination from job due to illness)
In the same vein, the term "parents" in the phrase "dependent parents" in the
14. DEFENSES AGAINST EC CLAIMS
afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in its
general sense and cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate parents" as what the
ECC did. The phrase "dependent parents" should, therefore, include all parents, 1. Not work connected or not occupational
whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption. When 2. Limitations (intoxication, etc..)
3. No notice was given to the employer under Art. 212 of the Labor Code
the law does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, "dependent
parents" are parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by adoption, 4. Prescription
who are in need of support or assistance.
Art. 201: 3 years from the time the cause of action accrued.
When did the cause of action accrue? From the date of the occurrence of the
contingency.
OBRA v. SSS
We agree with the petitioner that her claim for death benefits under the SSS
should be considered as the Employees Compensation itself. This is but logical and
reasonable because the claim for death benefits which petitioner filed with the SSS
is of the same nature as her claim before the ECC. Furthermore, the SSS is the same
agency with which the EC claims are filed. As correctly contended by the
petitioner, when she filed her claim for death benefits with the SSS under the SS
Law, she had already notified the SSS of her EC claim, because the SSS is the same
agency where claims for payment of sickness/death/disability benefits under P.D.
No. 626 are filed.
This ruling will apply (I SUBMIT) only if claims under SSS and EC are the same in
nature
25 | P a g e - J P D E H 4 0 6