LAMBO vs NLRC

Lambo and Belocura = employed as tailors by J.C. Tailor Shop and/or Johnny Co
= worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily including Sundays and Holidays
= paid on a piece-work basis
Regardless of the pieces finished = Paid daily pay of at least P64.00
They were illegally dismissed
filed a complaint against private respondents for illegal dismissal AND asking for claims
LA found JC Tailor = guilty of illegal dismissal and accordinglyorderedthemtopaypetitionersclaims
NLRC reversed the decision = Ground Abandonment of work
Issue:
WON the petitioners are entitled to the minimum benefits provided by law
Held: YES
Petitioners were employees of private respondents although they were paid not on the basis of time spent on the job
two categories of employees paid by results:
a) those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer = element of control and supervision
over the manner as to how the work is to be performed (garment factories)
b) time and performance are unsupervised = control is over the result of the work (agricultural industry)
Petitioners belong to the first category, i.e., supervised employees
Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations
Nor does the fact that petitioners are not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee relationship

Corporal vs NLRC
Osias Corporal et al = worked as barbers and manicurists in New Look Barber Shop owned by Vincent Lao
Started as single proprietorship
company

Registered w/ SEC as a Corporation

allowed to continue working with the new

Then the old building had been sold and told them that their services were no longer needed
Corporal et al = complaint for illegal dismissal and several claims
LaosDefense=no employer-employee relationship
1. They were joint venture partners AND received 50% commission of the amount charged to customers
2. allowed to register w/ SSS as employees only as an act of accommodation
3. All the SSS contributions were made by petitioners
LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint = Grounds: found no employer employee relationship
Issue:
WON there is E and E relationship?
Held: YES
sharing of proceeds for every job of petitioners in the barber shop does not mean they were not employees of the
respondent company (San Miguel Jeepney Service vs. NLRC)
power to control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof nor is it
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee.
ENOUGH = employer has the right to exercise the power
Based on the ff facts establishes control
a) worked in the barber shop of Lao
b) required to report daily and observe definite hours of work
c) (X) free to accept other employment elsewhere and devoted their full time working there
d) clothed with the power to dismiss any or all of them for just and valid cause
While it is no longer true that membership to SSS is predicated on the existence of an employee-employer
relationship = COURT (X) agree that they were registered w/ SSS only as an act of accommodation
LAO = showed no proof to their claim that petitioners were the ones who solely paid all SSS contributions
They would not pay their SSS premium as well as their wages = if it were not true that they were indeed their
employees (Nagusara vs. NLRC)

PAJARILLO, ET AL vs SSS
Agapita Pajarillo et al = are owners of fishing boats
they enter into agreement with the so-called patrons or pilots
1. Use of the fishing boat
2. pilot "hires" the crew to man the boat and secures their provisions
The vessel-owners = being required to register as employers with the Social Security System
filed a complaint against SSC = CLAIMING NO Employer Employee Relationship
praying that they be exempted from the compulsory coverage of the law
Dismissed the complaint = Grounds: Though services of the crew-members are engaged by the pilots
mere agents of the boat-owners

pilots were

Issue:
WON they may be required to register as employers in SSS?
Held: NO
They cannot also be made subject to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Act
under no obligation to remain in the outfit for any definite period
fishing boat has no regular schedule of fishing trips = depends on the weather and other natural conditions, and
the volition of the pilots and crew-men themselves
no assurance of income for the fishermen and the boat-owner
HENCE = services rendered by the fishermen are no different from the agricultural labor performed by a share
or leasehold tenant or worker
= specifically excluded from the definition of "employment" and exempted from the coverage of the
Social Security Act
the extreme difficulty of determining the monthly wage of earning of these fishermen for the purpose of fixing
the amount of their and the supposed employer's contributions

SSS vs CA and THE PHILIPPINE GUARDS PROTECTION UNIT

SSS = sent a letter to Philippine Guards Protection Unit
its contributions to the System

threatening it with court action if it did not continue to remit

Eslao = owned and operated PGPU

= filed a petition for exclusion from coverage under the System and for a refund its remittances
= Ground: (X) employer but merely the agent of the guards or watchmen
SSC ruled that PGPU is an employer hence (X) exempted from coverage
Upon Appeal to CA = Reverse the decision = There is no E and E Relationship
a) Rulings of SC recognized special watchmen as employees of the companies to which they are assigned
b) those cases involve the interpretation of the Workers Compensation Act and not the Social Security Act
Issue:
WON the PGPU are considered the employers for purposes of social security coverage and not the client hiring them?
Held: YES
There are practical considerations such as:
1. A watchman is not permanently assigned to a client = may be pulled out and transferred to another client
2. the clients do not determine how much salary is to be plaid to the watchmen
3. Service performed by one person for another is not considered an employment if the same is "purely casual
and not for the purpose of occupation or business of the employer" (Section 8[j][3], Social Security Act of
1954)
4. all the watchmen are on the payroll and under the supervision of only one entity

Garcia vs. SSS

Immaculada L. Garcia, et.al. = directors of Impact Corporation w/c

encountering financial problems.

Impact Corporation = filed with SEC a Petition for Suspension of Payments.

SEC directed the company to pay all the entitled workers unpaid:
1. wages
2. 13th month pay
3. remit loan amortizations and SSS premiums previously deducted from the wages of the workers to SSS
SSS = filed for the collection of unremitted SSS premium contributions withheld by Impact before the SSC
Garcia et al refused = Grounds: their liability does not include liability for the unremitted SSS premium contributions
under the social security law
Issue:
WON petitioner can be made solely liable for the corporate obligations of Impact Corporation pertaining to unremitted
SSS premium contributions and penalties therefore?
Held: YES
Rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context
that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts
kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
The liability imposed as contemplated under the foregoing Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law does not
preclude the liability for the unremitted amount. Relevant to Section 28(f) is Section 22 of the same law

National Labor Union vs Dinglasan

Facts:
Respondent Dinglasan is the owner and operator of TPU jeepneys plying between Espaa-Quiapo-Pier and vice versa.
PetitionersaredriverswhohadverbalcontractswithRespondentfortheuseofthelattersjeepneys upon payment of
P7.50for10hoursuse,otherwiseknownastheboundarysystem.Saiddriversdidnotreceivesalariesorwagesfrom
Mr.Dinglasan;theirdaysearningsbeingtheexcessovertheP7.50thattheypaidfortheuseofthejeepneys.In the
eventthattheydidnotearnmore,Respondentdidnothavetopaythemanything.Mr.Dinglasanssupervisionoverthe
drivers consisted in inspection of the jeepneys that they took out when they passed his gasoline station for water,
checking the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission, or whether any driver was driving recklessly and
washing and changing the tires of jeepneys.
Issue:
Whether there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the drivers of the jeeps and the owner thereof.
Held:
In this case there is supervision and a sort of control that the owner of the jeeps exercises over the drivers. It is an
attempt by ingenious scheme to withdraw the relationship between the owner of the jeeps and the drivers thereof from
the operation of the labor laws enacted to promote industrial peace.
ThemanagementofthebusinessisintheRespondentshands.Forevenifthedriversofthejeepstakematerial
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 the rules and regulations promulgated by it as regards their
operation. And when they pass by the gasoline station of the Respondent checking by his employees on the water tank,
oil and tire pressure is done.

CMS Estate Inc. vs Social Security System

Facts:
Petitioner is a domestic corporation organized primarily for the purpose of engaging in the real estate business. On
December 1, 1952, it started doing business with only six (6) employees. It's Articles of Incorporation was amended on
June 4, 1956 in order to engage in the logging business. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the certificate
of filing of said amended articles on June 18, 1956.
On January 28, 1957, petitioner entered into a contract of management with one Eufracio D. Rojas for the operation and
exploitation of the forest concession The logging operation actually started on April 1, 1957 with four monthly salaried
employees. As of September 1, 1957, petitioner had 89 employees and laborers in the logging operation. On December
26, 1957, petitioner revoked its contract of management with Mr. Rojas.
On August 1, 1958, petitioner became a member of the Social Security System with respect to its real estate business.
On September 6, 1958, petitioner remitted to the System the sum of P203.13 representing the initial premium on the
monthly salaries of the employees in its logging business. However, on October 9, 1958, petitioner demanded the refund
of the said amount, claiming that it is not yet subject to compulsory coverage with respect to its logging business. The
request was denied by respondent System on the ground that the logging business was a mere expansion of petitioner's
activities and for purposes of the Social Security Act, petitioner should be considered a member of the System since
December 1, 1952 when it commenced its real estate business.
On November 10, 1958, petitioner filed a petition with the Social Security Commission praying for the determination of
the effectivity date of the compulsory coverage of petitioner's logging business. The SSC adjudged CMS to be subject to
compulsory coverage as of September 1, 1957.
Issue:
When will an employer be subject to the compulsory coverage of the SSS.

Held:
Section 10 (formerly Sec. 9) of RA 1161, as amended by RA 2658 now provides:
Sec. 10. Effective date of coverage. Compulsory coverage of the employer shall take effect on the first day of his
operation, and that of the employee on the date of his employment.
The records indubitably show that petitioner started its real estate business on December 1, 1952 while its logging
operation was actually commenced on April 1, 1957. Applying the provision of Sec. 10 of the Act, petitioner is subject to
compulsory coverage as of December 1, 1952 with respect to the real estate business and as of April 1, 1957 with
respect to its logging operation.

Social Security System vs Davac

Facts:
he late Petronilo Davac, a former employee of Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. became a member of the Social Security
System (SSS for short) on September 1, 1957. n SSS form E-1 (Member's Record) which he accomplished and filed with
the SSS on November 21, 1957, he designated respondent Candelaria Davac as his beneficiary and indicated his
relationship to her as that of "wife". He died on April 5, 1959 and, thereupon, Candelaria Davac and Lourdes Tuplano,
filed their claims for death benefit with the SSS. It appears from their respective claims and the documents submitted in
support thereof, that the deceased contracted two marriages.
Due to their conflicting claims, the processing thereof was held in abeyance, whereupon the SSS filed this petition
praying that respondents be required to interpose and litigate between themselves their conflicting claims over the
death benefits in question. The SSC declared Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive the death benefits to
Petronilo. Not satisfied with the said resolution, respondent Lourdes Tuplano brought to us the present appeal.
appellant contends that the designation herein made in the person of the second and, therefore, bigamous wife is null
and void, because (1) it contravenes the provisions of the Civil Code, and (2) it deprives the lawful wife of her share in
the conjugal property as well as of her own and her child's legitime in the inheritance.
Issue: Whether or not the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent Candelaria Davac as the
person entitled to receive the death benefits in question.
Held:
Section 13, Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 1792, in force at the time Petronilo Davac's death
on April 5, 1959, provides:
SEC.13.Uponthecoveredemployee'sdeathortotalandpermanentdisabilityundersuchconditionsastheCommission
may define, before becoming eligible for retirement and if either such death or disability is not compensable under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, he or, in case of his death, his beneficiaries, as recorded by his employer shall be entitled
tothefollowingbenefit
Under this provision, the beneficiary "as recorded" by the employee's employer is the one entitled to the death benefits.
It appears that the benefit receivable under the Act is in the nature of a special privilege or an arrangement secured by
the law, pursuant to the policy of the State to provide social security to the workingmen. The amounts that may thus be
received cannot be considered as property earned by the member during his lifetime. His contribution to the fund, it
may be noted, constitutes only an insignificant portion thereof. Then, the benefits are specifically declared not
transferable, and exempted from tax legal processes, and lien. Furthermore, in the settlement of claims there under the
procedure to be observed is governed not by the general provisions of law, but by rules and regulations promulgated by
the Commission. Thus, if the money is payable to the estate of a deceased member, it is the Commission, not the
probate or regular court that determines the person or persons to whom it is payable. That the benefits under the Social
Security Act are not intended by the lawmaking body to form part of the estate of the covered member may be
gathered from the subsequent amendment made to Section 15 thereof, as follows:
SEC. 15. Non-transferability of benefit. The system shall pay the benefits provided for in this Act to such persons as
may be entitled thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Such benefits are not transferable, and no power
of attorney or other document executed by those entitled thereto in favor of any agent, attorney, or any other
individual for the collection thereof in their behalf shall be recognized except when they are physically and legally unable
to collect personally such benefits: Provided, however, That in the case of death benefits, if no beneficiary has been

designated or the designation there of is void, said benefits shall be paid to the legal heirs in accordance with the laws of
succession. (Rep. Act 2658, amending Rep. Act 1161.)
In short, if there is a named beneficiary and the designation is not invalid (as it is not so in this case), it is not the heirs of
the employee who are entitled to receive the benefits (unless they are the designated beneficiaries themselves). It is
only when there is no designated beneficiaries or when the designation is void, that the laws of succession are
applicable. And we have already held that the Social Security Act is not a law of succession.