Agra and Social Legislation Finals

5/19/2018 Agra and Social Legislation Finals

1/13

Pointers in Agrarian Reform and other social legislation:

I.

SS ACT OF 1997

1. JURISDICTION; DACION EN PAGO IMPLEMENTATION (SSSV ATLANTIC GULF)

SSS VS ATLANTIC GOLF

-atlantic filed a complaint for specific performance and

damages against SSS before RTC of Batangas City

-from the averment in the complaint, private respondents

are seeking to implement the deed of assignment which

they had drafted and submitted to SSS sometime in July

2001, pursuant to SSSs letter addressed to AG&P dated 23

April 2001 approving AG&P and SEMIRARAs delinquencies

through dacion en pago, which as of 31 March 2001,

amount to P29,261,902.45.

When the deed of assignment was submitted sss did not

sign it because there was a conflict as to the amount of

delinquencies. Mao na adto sila sa court to compel sss to

sign the dacion en pago. Sss filed a motion to dismiss on

the ground lack of jurisdiction. Citing section 5, RTC

dismissed.

-ca reversed RTC decision and held that the subject of

complaint(kuwang and slide)

ISSUE: which body has the jurisdiction to entertain the

controversy arising from the non-implementation of a

dacion en pago agreed upon by the parties as a means of

settlement of private respondents liabilities?

SC; from the allegations of respondents complaint, it

readily appears that there is no longer dispute with

respect to respondents accountability to SSS. Respondent,

had in fact admitted their delinquency and offered to

settle them by way of dacion en pago subsequently

approved by the SSS in Resolution no. 270s-2001.

- The controversy lies in the non-implementation of the

approved and agreed dacion en pago on the part of the

SSS. As such, respondents filed a suit to obtain its

enforcement which is, doubtless, a suit for specific

performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation

beyond the competence of the Commission.

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 suchreview, 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.

Notice here that the law uses the word appeal. Appeal

from the decision of the commission. So whether it is by

petition for review, verified petition for review or a notice

of appeal.

The Old Rule says it is by mere notice of appeal but in the

recent Rule, it is by verified petition for review.

Notice of appeal: (1) you only have one piece of paper (2)

Material date when you receive the copy of the decision

and (3) you furnish the opposing council correctly, then

notice of appeal is complied. The problem of the notice of

appeal is once the notice of appeal is perfected the entire

records will all be elevated to the higher court, in this case

the court of appeals. But there will be a problem there.

why? Because the SSC is a quasi-judicial body, its not the

same with regular courts.

But if it is verified petition of review, the entire records will

remain at the SSC. What we will file at the CA is the

petition for review which will contain the facts of the case,

the material dates, the issues, the arguments but you need

to attach true copies of the relevant documents that you

cite or you will cite in your petition for review.

Criminal offenses for violations of the law are within the

jurisdiction of the regular courts.

2.

REP V ASIAPRO - WEEKLY STIPENDS OR EXCESS INSERVICE SURPLUS; E-E

REPUBLIC VS ASIAPRO CCOPERATION

-respondent Asiapro, as cooperative is composed of

owners-members. Its primary objective is to provide

savings and credit facilities and to develop other livelihood

services for its owners-members.

Are members of the cooperative covered compulsorily

under SSS?

-In the discharge of the primary objective, respondent

entered into several service contracts with Stanfilco- a

division of DOLE Phil Inc. and a company based in

Bukidnon. The owners-members do not receive

compensation or wages from the respondent cooperative,Instead, they receive a share in the service surplus which

the cooperative earns from different areas of trade it

engages in such as the income derived from the said

service contracts with stanfilco. The owners-members get

their income from the service generated by the quality and

amount of service they rendered which is determined by

the board of directors of the cooperative.

-in order to enjoy the benefits under the SS Law of 1997

the owners-members of the cooperative who were


2/13

assigned to stanfilco requested the service of the latter to

register them with petitioner SSS as self-employed and to

remit their contributions as such.

-SSS sent a letter to stanfilco that based on the service

contract it executed with stanfilco, the cooperative is a

manpower contractor supplying employees for stanfilco

and for that reason, it is an employer of its owners-

members working with stanfilco. Thus, respondentcooperative should register itself with SSS as an employer

and make the corresponding report and remittance of

prenimum contributions in accordance with SSL.

WHO SHOULD DETERMINE E-E?

-since the existence of EE rel. between the respondent

coop and its owners-members was put in issue and

considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS law is

predicated on the existence of such relationship, it

behooves the petitioner SSC to determine if there is really

an EE rel existing between respondent coop and its

owners-members.

The same four-fold test, the same elements.

Independent contracting and labor only employees = not

covered by SS law.

-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the

exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating

the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC

provides that:

ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the

Commission:

Xxx xxxx xxx

6. except claims for employees compensation, SS,

medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising

from EE relations including those of persons in domestic or

household service including an amount exceeding P5000

regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for

reinstatement.

-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, 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 EE

relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage

of SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the

NLRC and falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is

primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising

under SSL of 1997.

-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ff

elements are considered:

(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay

kapuy type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the

employers control of the employees conduct, not only as

to the result of the work to be done but also as to the

means and methods to accomplish.

Connect this to the case of Co vs People

SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.

Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed

from the supposed employee against the supposed

employer. That there was no EE relationship. The ruling

was final and executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang

kadtong supposed employer in the fiscals office for

violation of the SS law. Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC.Ni.file ug motion to quash on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction. And the court sustained, saying that there is

no more need to determine the EE relationship because

that has already been determined by the Labor Courts that

there was absence of EE relationship. And since SS law

coverage is predicated on the existence then there should

be no more criminal case to be filed against the supposed

employer.

SC: the mandatory coverage

Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory

ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the

ruling on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not

end the issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which

may be different to that of the Labor Courts.

SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)

1. expressly provided in the service contract that

respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the

selection and engagement of the owners-members as well

as team leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.

2. The weekly stipends or the so called share 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 the 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 share in the service surplus are indeed wages

because these are given to the owners-members as

compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to respondent

cooperatives client, stanfilco.

If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag

dividends sa corporation.

3. Power to investigate cooperative

4. Control of cooperative

3. PROJECT EMPLOYEES (CHUA V CA)Coverage of Employees

a. A private employee who is not over 60 years oldb. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is

covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.

A household-helper is any person who renders

domestic or household services exclusively to a household

employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and

other similar occupations.

c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard

contract or employment between the seafarer and the


3/13

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 entered into an administrative

agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino

workers.

Are laborers continuously assigned to construction

projects as carpenters, wielders, are compulsory covered?

Case of CHUA vs CA: there was still an EE-ER relationship,

so covered. mao na, probationary employees, they are

covered under SSS. why? Regardless of the nature of the

employment.

EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.

So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if you

have an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for

example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS

law in the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist

na ang SSS but the question there, what is the effect of

your payment kung dunay labor case gifile later on?

Because for me, that may be considered as an admission

that there existed an EE-ER relationship. That is practical

why? you try to avoid criminal case.

The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to

the report the employer coverage to the SSS.

4.

TAXI DRIVER ENGAGED ON BOUNDARY BASISThey (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.

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 circularprovides 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 7GARAGE, 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 theowner of the laws enacted to promote industrial peace."

As such employees, jeepney drivers are therefore covered

under Sec. 10 of the Social Security Law.

5. LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING


4/13

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 contractorbecause 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.

TN: naa sa lain notes. Independent contracting and labor

only employees are not covered by the SS Law.

6. EMPLOYMENT SERVICES NOT COVERED: PURELY CASUAL(MANSAL V GO-CHECO)

Very Important: EE Relationship because in SS law there

are employees that are excluded from coverage, so even if

they perform services and the receive compensation, they

are excluded because of the ABSENCE of employer-

employee relationship.

(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 vesselis 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 oncoverage and amount of payment of contributions and

benefits: Provided, finally, That the provisions of this Act

shall be supplementary to any such agreement; and

(5) Such other services performed by temporary and other

employees which may be excluded by regulation of the

Commission. Employees of bona fide independent

contractors shall not be deemed employees of the

employer engaging the service of said contractors.

Employment services excluded. You can find this also on SS

book.

- FOCUS on number 1 and number 5.

- Employees of bonafide independent contractor

shall not be deemed employees of the employeer

engaging the service of the said contractors. (For purposes

of the bar, this will be important.)

- 1. "purely casual employment" and not for the

purpose of occupation for business of the employee .

o The person that is engaged there is actually an

employee, but is purely casual and not for the purpose of

occupation or business of the employee.

case of MANSAL VS. GUCHECO Meaning of number (1).

The work of the mechanic is purely casual because it is not

part of the business in the operation of the lumber

business.

BAR: I think it was a warehouse or building selling

merchandise. naguba ang atop because of the storm and

the carpenter is hired to fix the roof.

Q: whether the carpenter should be compulsorily covered?

Answer is # 1. It was purely casual employment

and the services performed by the carpenter are not for

the purpose of occupation for business of the employer.

- But there can be a lot of arguments here. What

is purely casual, that is not also defined under SS law.

Agricultural laborer- the finding is also based on the

presence of the elements of employer employee

relationship.

7. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER

Coverage of Employers

a. An employer, or any person who uses the

services of another person in business, trade, industry or

any undertaking.


5/13

b. A social, civil, professional, charitable and other

non-profit 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 Filipinoemployees

8.

SICKNESS BENEFIT NUMBER OF DAYS THAT CAN BEPAID

Sickness 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 members average

daily salary credit.

Requirements:

1. He is unable to work due to sickness or injury

and confined either in a hospital or at home for at least 4

days;

2. He has paid at least 3 months of contributions within

the 12-month period immediately before the semester of

sickness/injury

In computing, exclude the semester of sickness. A

semester refers to two consecutive quarters ending in the

quarter of sickness. A quarter refers to three consecutive

months ending March, June, September or December.

3. He has used up all company sick leaves with pay; and

Why? Because if there is a company paying, so why will

the system pay you? Supposedly, it is the fact that you will

not receive anything from the company due to your

inability to work where the system will compensate.

4. He has notified the employer or SSS, if separated,

voluntary or self-employed.

Notify employer within 5 calendar days after

start of sickness/injury and employer must notify SSS

within 5 days after receipt of notification. Notice is not

required if members confinement is in hospital (why?

Because it can easily be checked) or member got sick while

working or within company premises. (within the company

premises = the employer is supposed to know that you got

sick)

Note: Requirement 2 is very common to all benefits

For example (from the guidebook of SSS): SSS member

gets sick in October 2006 for 20 days.

a. The semester of sickness would be from July

2006 to December 2006. two quarters including the

October 2006

b. The 12-month period would be from July 2005 to

June 2006 (where the six highest monthly salary credits

will be chosen).

It is during the 12-month period where SSS would have to

know whether there was payment of at least three months

contribution.

MSC = Monthly Salary Credits

If maglahi2x ug sweldo kay balhin2x ug amo, it is the 6th

highest MSC that will be chosen.

In no case shall the daily sickness benefit be paid longer

than one hundred twenty (120) days in one (1) calendar

year, nor shall any unused portion of the one hundred

twenty (120) days of sickness benefit granted under this

section be carried forward and added to the total number

of compensable days allowable in the subsequent year.

Limit as to number of days (above) because in sickness, the

salary credit will have to be multiplied with the number of

days that the member gets sick hence the maximum

(stated above).

9. MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFIT

Maternity Benefit

It is a daily cash allowance granted to female

member who was unable to work due to childbirth or

miscarriage.No marriage requirement.

It is equivalent to 100% of members average

daily salary credit (wala pa niy deduction ha?) multiplied

by 60 days for normal delivery or miscarriage, 78 days for

caesarian section delivery.

Qualifications for entitlement: (same with sickness)

1. She has paid at least three monthly contributions

within the 12-month 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.

a. The semester of contingency would be from July

2006 to December 2006.

b. The 12-month period before the semester of

contingency would be from July 2005 to June 2006.

Deliveries covered: (Important aspect)

Only for the first four deliveries or miscarriages

shall be paid starting May 24, 1997 (effectivity of RA 8282)

Miscarriages include abortion. SSS website only mentionedabortion, no qualification whether it is intentional or

unintentional but according to SSS abortion should only

cover unintentional. Why? According to them, there is a

criminal responsibility on intentional abortion.

But is it not that regardless or criminal liability for as long

as the facts comply with the requirements, in (sirs)

opinion, it should cover intentional abortion but I have no

basis for that. Because for me, the purpose of SS law is to

benefit the employee. What is the purpose of SS law with


6/13

respect the employer? To oblige the employer because

remember the employer does not get anything from the SS

law. Employer has a lot of obligations and responsibilities

under the SS law.

Note: Delivery of twins/triplets/quadra/etc. = one delivery

only

Notice required:

As soon as pregnancy is confirmed, member

must notify immediately employer or SSS, if unemployed,

etc. and probable date of childbirth at least 60 days from

date of conception. Employer must in turn notify SSS after

receipt of notification. Failure to observe the rule may

result in denial.

Can a member apply for sickness benefit if she has been

paid maternity benefit?

No, because as a rule, no member can be entitled to two

benefits for the same period.

10. WHO DETERMINES E-E?11. EFFECT OF FINAL JUDGMENT AT NLRC ON E-E

WHO SHOULD DETERMINE E-E?

-since the existence of EE rel. between the respondent

coop and its owners-members was put in issue and

considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS law is

predicated on the existence of such relationship, it

behooves the petitioner SSC to determine if there is really

an EE rel existing between respondent coop and its

owners-members.

The same four-fold test, the same elements.

Independent contracting and labor only employees = not

covered by SS law.

-the question on the existence of EE rel. is not within the

exclusive jurisdiction of NLRC. ART 217 of LC enumerating

the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC

provides that:

ART. 217- Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the

Commission:

Xxx xxxx xxx

6. except claims for employees compensation, SS,medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising

from EE relations including those of persons in domestic or

household service including an amount exceeding P5000

regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for

reinstatement.

-although the provision speaks merely of claims for SS, 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 EE

relationship for the purpose of determining the coverage

of SSS is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the

NLRC and falls with the jurisdiction of SSC which is

primarily charged with the duty of settling disputes arising

under SSL of 1997.

-in determining the existence of an EE relationship, the ffelements are considered:

(4-fold test ni, kamu nlng supply remember labor kay

kapuy type.. heheh..) The most important. Element is the

employers control of the employees conduct, not only as

to the result of the work to be done but also as to the

means and methods to accomplish.

Connect this to the case of Co vs People

SSC cannot determine the relationship in all instances.

Facts: There was already a ruling from the labor case filed

from the supposed employee against the supposed

employer. That there was no EE relationship. The ruling

was final and executory. Despite that, gikiha gihapon ang

kadtong supposed employer in the fiscals office for

violation of the SS law. Nakalusot ang kiha, naabot sa RTC.

Ni.file ug motion to quash on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction. And the court sustained, saying that there is

no more need to determine the EE relationship because

that has already been determined by the Labor Courts that

there was absence of EE relationship. And since SS law

coverage is predicated on the existence then there should

be no more criminal case to be filed against the supposed

employer.

SC: the mandatory coverage

Sir: In my opinion, if there is already a final and executory

ruling of the labor code, SSC does not have to make the

ruling on the EE relationship. Why? Because that will not

end the issue and you may have a ruling of the SSC which

may be different to that of the Labor Courts.

SC: ALL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE (Asiapro)

1. expressly provided in the service contract that

respondent coop has the exclusive jurisdiction in the

selection and engagement of the owners-members as well

as team leaders who will be assigned at stanfilco.

2. The weekly stipends or the so called share in the

service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its

owners-members WERE IN REALITY WAGES, as the samewere equivalent to an amount not lower than that

prescribed by the 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 share in the service surplus are indeed wages

because these are given to the owners-members as

compensation in RENDERING SERVICES to respondent

cooperatives client, stanfilco.


7/13

If share jud, if naay makuha naa, if wala, wala. Mura bag

dividends sa corporation.

3. Power to investigate cooperative

4. Control of cooperative

12. CONTINGENCIES COVERED; BENEFITS WHERE EMPLOYER

ADVANCES

-SS evolved from an age-old search of man for protection

against poverty, which breeds grave social ills that not only

threaten his survival but also erode his sense of human

dignity. It therefore becomes the duty of the state to

operate a mechanism that would provide such protection

to its people.

Poverty in the context of contingency as contemplated in

the SS law. Contingencies contemplated in SS law which

the program seeks to address: death, old age, retirement,

sickness, pregnancy, or disability.

-the system established a program which relieves financial

want by restoring income lost through inability to work

due to death, old age, sickness, pregnancy or disability

Example, if a covered member of sss dies, he may be left

by his surviving spouse who may not have any work or any

source of income; or a covered employee retires.

-so workers are protected from anxieties arising out of

contingencies

-but another phenomenon has aroused a deep anxiety for

working class- globalization (ie, cost-cutting, productivity

enhancement, downsizing of personnel, termination of

jobs.) These may be financial but these are not

contingencies in the eyes of the ss law. Termination of job

and unemployment not included in the contingency.

Employers need to advance:

1.

Advance SS and EC sickness benefits once approved by SSS

2.

Advance SS maternity benefits due

3. File for reimbursement for all legally advanced sickness

and maternity benefits

13. CLAIMS UNDER LABOR CODE VIS--VIS SSS (ORTEGA VSSC)

ORTEGA VS SSC

-Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under

the Social Security Law for benefits are not the same as to

their nature and purpose.

-On the one hand, the pertinent provisions of the LaborCode govern compensability of work-related disabilities or

when there is loss of income due to work-connected or

work-aggravated injury or illness.

-On the other hand, the benefits under the Social Security

Law are intended to provide insurance or protection

against the hazards or risks of disability, sickness, old age

or death, inter alia, irrespective of whether they arose

from or in the course of the employment.

-And unlike under the Social Security Law, a disability is

total and permanent under the Labor Code if as a result of

the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform

any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding

120 days regardless of whether he loses the use of any of

his body parts.

14. COMPULSORY COVERAGE; WHEN EFFECTIVECOMPULSORY COVERAGE (Memorize!) importance of the

word compulsory NO CHOICE hahahaha

Even if the household helper requests not to be covered,

which normally happens, nganu man? maibanan man

akoang sweldo ayaw lng deducti noh anyway naa btw para

SS ayaw nlng i-deduct. Assuming imong gi report, wa nimo

gi-deduct, ang employer manubag sa balaod! Dili ang

employee and remember wala rabai relationship. Inig kiha

sa employeer sa employee, aw kapapa ang employer .

Coverage of Employees

a. A private employee who is not over 60 years old

b. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is

covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.

A household-helper is any person who renders

domestic or household services exclusively to a household

employer such driver, gardener, cook, governess, and

other similar occupations.

c. A Filipino seafarer upon the signing of the standard

contract or 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 entered into an administrative

agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino

workers.

Are laborers continuously assigned to construction

projects as carpenters, wielders, are compulsory covered?

Case of CHUA vs CA: there was still an EE-ER relationship,

so covered. mao na, probationary employees, they are

covered under SSS. why? Regardless of the nature of the

employment.

EFFECTIVITY: first day of employment.

So advice karon sa mga clients. Naay mo sud, ask if youhave an SS na. In the same manner in the criminal case for

example, if your client is sued for the violation of the SS

law in the fiscals office, once mo bayad ka sa SS, mo exist

na ang SSS but the question there, what is the effect of

your payment kung dunay labor case gifile later on?

Because for me, that may be considered as an admission

that there existed an EE-ER relationship. That is practical

why? you try to avoid criminal case.


8/13

The employer is given 30 days from day to employment to

the report the employer coverage to the SSS.

Compulsory coverage

1. For an employee on the first day of

employment

2. For an employeron 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.

15. APPEAL FROM SSC; NON-APPLICABILITY OF TECHNICALRULES

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 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

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 shallnot be controlling.

CASE: Signey vs. SSS

SC: 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.

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.

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.

16. BENEFICIARIES; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES

The legal beneficiaries of a member are:

Legally married dependent spouse until he or

she remarries;

Dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally

adopted and illegitimate children.

These two are primary beneficiaries.

Spouse- common-law relationship has no right to claim.

Until he or she remarries ha. Why? There is an assumption

in law that if there is a separation de facto, the assumption

is there is no more dependence. If they are living together,

one is dependent to another. Question here is, what if one

is working?

Children- take note, there is also the word "dependent".

Dependent, not gainfully employed, not yet reached the

age of 21 yrs. old. Important phrase here: "not gainfully

employed". No definition here in SS, in GSIS, there is.

If single, benefits will go to dependent parents who are

considered secondary beneficiaries.

In absence of both primary and secondary, any other

person designated by member.

17.

CONSENT OF SSS ON FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTION- Not needed.

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


9/13

violation was committed within its territorial jurisdiction or

in Metro Manila, at the option of the SSS.

18. LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT AND GOOD FAITH ASDEFENCESTan vs 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.

19. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

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)

Prescriptive period in filing a disability claim: (Take note of

this)

10 years from the date of occurrence of

disability. (employee filing claims against the system)

In order to contextualize, the other prescriptive period is

section 22: claims against the employer = 20 years

(employee filing claims against employer)

In the SS website, since the law is silent as to the period on

retirement and death and maternity = no prescribed

period. Does it follow that section 22 would apply (20

years)? NOT necessarily since section 22 is a claims against

the EMPLOYER i.e. (employer was not able to report).

- According to SS Commission, the other benefits

not covered, it is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, that is if you have

complied with the notices of requirement.

20.

GARCIA V SSCDIRECTOR LIABLE?

Garcia vs SSC

-SSC found Garcia, the sole surviving director of Impact

Corporation, petitioner herein, liable for unremitted SSS

contributions.

Issue is whether or not petitioner, as the only surviving

director of Impact Corporation, can be made solely liable

for the corporate obligations of Impact Corporation

pertaining to unremitted SSS premium contributions and

penalties therefore.

- Petitioner 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.

- 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. (very interesting

provision daw)

SC:

This Court though finds no need to resort to statutory

construction. Section 28 (f) of the Social Security Law

imposes penalty on:

(1) the managing head;

(2) directors; or

(3) partners, for offenses committed by a

juridical person

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

Although a corporation once formed is conferred a

juridical personality separate and distinct from the persons

comprising it, it is but a legal fiction introduced for

purposes of convenience and to subserve the ends ofjustice. The concept cannot be extended to a point beyond

its reasons and policy, and when invoked in support of an

end subversive of this policy, will be disregarded by the

courts.


10/13

II. GSIS Act of 1997

1. JURISDICTION

GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any

dispute arising under RA 8291 w/ respect to:

- Coverage- Entitlement to benefits

- Collection and payment of contributions

- Any other matter related to any or all of the foregoing

which is necessary for their determination

Prescriptive period

Four years from date of contingency except life and

retirement which do not prescribe.

2. ARE JUDGES COVERED?

COMPULSORY COVERAGE OF JUDGES UNDER GSIS: LIFE

INSURANCE

Compulsory Life Insurance NOTE

All employees, including the members of the judiciary and

the constitutional commissioners, but excluding the

uniformed members of the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police and the

Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), and Bureau of Jail

Management and Penology.

In contributions, there is a column 9% employees, 12%

employers, in excess of 10,000 it is subject to 2%. There is

a column for members of the judiciary and the

constitutional commissioners. Ang percentage sa ilang

contribution is 3% representing compulsory life insurance.

And NOTE: THERE IS NOTHING THERE ABOUT EMPLOYERS

CONTRIBUTION. Why? Because they are not covered. Ang

coverage nila is only with respect to life insurance.

3.

WHO IS A DEPENDENT LEGITIMATE CHILD?4. NEW BENEFITS; PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES IN CASE OF

SURVIVORSHIP

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:

a. The legitimate spouse, until s/he re-marries, or co-

habits/engages in common-law relationship; andb. 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.

Meaning of dependent?Dependent means one who derives his or her main

support from another, meaning, relying, 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. (A.M No. 100119 Ret. February 22,

2001 * RE: APPLICATION FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS.

MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE

ERNESTO R. MANLAVI])

A.M No. 100119 Ret. February 22, 2001 [ RE:

APPLICATION FOR SUVIVORS BENEFITS OF MS. MAYLENNE

G. MANLAVI, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ERNESTO R.

MANLAVI)

5.

SEPARATION BENEFITFOR CAUSE

SEPARATION BENEFIT UNDER GSIS: TWO DISTINCTIONS:

(1) IF SEPARATION IS FOR CAUSE OR (2) NOT FOR CAUSE

IRR, Rule II, sec. 25; DISTINCTION

Member separated for cause

o Automatically forfeit

o Unless terms of resignation or separation provide

otherwise

Member separated not for cause

o Shall continue to be a member and entitled subject to

qualification and other prescription

6.

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" whichapplies 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.


11/13

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, jurisprudenceand 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.

COA disallowances cannot be deducted from retirement

benefits.

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 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.

7. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

"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

8.

GSIS V NLRC SECURITY GUARDS MONEYCLAIMS

GSIS vs. NLRC (important)

Remember there is an indirect employer under the labor

code.

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.

When there was an execution against GSIS for the money

claims, GSIS argued, you cannot touch our funds, invoking

SEC. 39 of the Charter.

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

DNL securitys services, petitioner became an indirect

employer of respondents, pursuant to article 107 of the

labor code.

After DNL security failed to pay respondents the correct

wages and other monetary benefits, petitioner, as

principal, became jointly and severally liable, as providedin 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.


12/13

PEOPLE nagpadungog2 napud balik ang contracting agency

echus sa LABOR. Maygawshhh!!!! Saup baya ko atong

essay!!!!

III. PORTABILITY LAW

1. WHEN APPLICABLE? WHEN IS TOTALIZATION RESORTED

TO?

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 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 BenefitsRA 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.

Portabilityrefers 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.

IV.

V.

VI. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

1.

VALERIANO V ECC - COVERAGE FORMULA "ARISINGOUT OF" AND "IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT"; 24-HOUR-DUTY DOCTRINE

2.

CAN A CLAIM FOR BENEFIT BE DEFEATED BY THE MEREFACT OF SEPARATION FROM SERVICE? (GSIS V CUANANG,AQUINO V SSS, ETC.)

1) VALERIANO V. ECC(GR No. 136200,June 8, 2000)

Celerino Valeriano was employed as a fire truck

driver assigned at the San Juan Fire Station

On July 3, 1985, petitioner met a friend by the

name of Alexander Agawin. They decided to

proceed to Bonanza Restaurant in EDSA, for

dinner.

Owner-type jeepney they were riding in figured

in a head-on collision with another vehicle at the

intersection of N. Domingo and Broadway

streets in Q.C.

Petitioner was thrown out of the vehicle and

was severely injured. He was brought to the

hospital for several treatments.

On Sept. 16, 1985, he filed a claim for income

benefits under PD 626 with GSIS.

GSIS & ECC; Opposed on the ground that theinjuries he sustained did not directly arise or

result from the nature of his work.

ISSUES:- Whether petitioners injuries are work-

connected

- Whether petitioner fireman, like soldiers, can be

presumed to be on 24- hour duty

HELD:

SC: For injury to be compensable, the standard of work-connection must be substantially satisfied. The injury and

the resulting disability sustained by reason of employment

are compensable regardless of the place where the injuredoccurred, if it can be proven that at the time of the injury,

the employee was acting within the purview of his

employment and performing an act reasonably necessary

or incidental thereto. Petitioner sustained the injuriesafter pursuing a purely personal and social function. Hisinjuries and consequent disability were not work-connected and thus not compensable.


13/13

In Hinoguin and Nitura , the Court granted death

compensation benefits to their heirs, as both members of

the Phil. Army. Citing ECC v. CA, Court reviewed Hinoguin,

Nitura and ECC and noted that in each case death benefit

were granted, not just because of the principle that

soldiers or policemen were virtually working round the

clock, but of the reasonable nexus between the absence

of the deceased from his assigned place of work and theincident causing his death.

Taking together jurisprudence and pertinent

guidelines of ECC with respect to claims for death benefits:

1.

That the employee must be at the place wherehis work requires him to be

2. That the employee must have been performinghis official functions

3. That if the injury is sustained elsewhere, theemployee must have been executing an orderfor the employer.

24 hour duty doctrine cannot be applied to petitionerscase.

-He was neither at assigned work place nor in

pursuit of orders of his superiors when he met

an accident.

- He was not doing an act within his duty and

authority as a fire truck driver at the time he

sustained his injuries.

2) GSIS V. CUANANG(GR No. 158846, June 3, 2004)

Carmen Cuanang was formerly employed as a

teacher in the Division of City Schools, Manila.

She was first appointed as Elementary Grade

Teacher, then promoted to Teacher I and later

on to Teacher II.

Carmen served as Teacher II until she applied for

early optional retirement after completing

almost 26 years of government service.

Sept. 14-18, 1997 she was confined for

Bronchial Ashma & Pneumonia, RHD and Mitral

Stenosis. She filed sickness benefits with GSIS

under PD 626. GSIS awarded her TemporaryTotal Disability benefits from Nov. 14-25, 1998.He was also granted Permanent PartialDisability benefits for 9 months.

She died at the age of 65 with the immediate

cause of death was determined to be CardioPulmonary Arrest with Acute MyocardialInfarction as the antecent cause, and BronchialAsthma and Hypertension as underlying cause.

GSIS: PD 626 since it occurred after retirement andbeyond PPD period. death was due to Myocardial

Infarction is not compensable underECC: affirmed the GSIS denial of respondents claimISSUE: Whether the resulting death of CarmenCuanang is compensable under PD 626.

SC: The wife of the respondent died a year after herretirement . Clearly, the period between her

retirement and demise was less than 1 year. A claim

for benefit for such death cannot be defeated by the

mere fact of separation from service.There was a substantial evidence to support respondentsclaim.

-The requisite substantial evidence came fromthe expert opinion of Dr. Arsenio Estreras whoissued the Death Certificate

- Expert opinion is fully supported by the facts

leading to Carmen Cuanangs deteriorating

health condition and ultimately, her death.

When she joined the government service on Oct.

1, 1972, she was in perfect health, but condition

while still in service started to worsen.

- Myocardial Infarction or known as coronary is

a life threatening condition. Predisposing factors

include stress. The collective effect of all the

factors involved during her service contributed

to the deterioration of her already precarious

health.

- The respondents claim is GRANTED.

Agra and Social Legislation Finals

Documents

Transcript of Agra and Social Legislation Finals