Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 100388 December 14, 2000
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner,
vs.
TE COURT O! APPEALS "#$ CONCITA AYALDE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES%SANTIAGO, J.:
In a petition before the Social Securit Co!!ission" Mar#arita Tana" $i%o$ of the late
I#nacio Tana" Sr." alle#e% that her husban% $as" before his %e!ise" an e!ploee of
Conchita &al%e as a far!han% in the t$o '() su#arcane plantations she o$ne% '*no$n
as +%a. No. &u%it ,-./ locate% in Ponteve%ra" 0a Carlota Cit) an% lease% fro! the
1niversit of the Philippines '*no$n as +%a. &u%it ,-23-M situate% in 0a 4ran5a" 0a
Carlota Cit). She further alle#e% that Tana $or*e% continuousl si6 '7) %as a $ee*"
four '8) $ee*s a !onth" an% for t$elve '2() !onths ever ear bet$een 9anuar 2:72
to &pril 2:.:. For his labor" Tana alle#e%l receive% a re#ular salar accor%in# to the
!ini!u! $a#e prevailin# at the ti!e. She further alle#e% that throu#hout the #iven
perio%" social securit contributions" as $ell as !e%icare an% e!ploees co!pensation
pre!iu!s $ere %e%ucte% fro! Tana;s $a#es. It $as onl after his %eath that Mar#arita
%iscovere% that Tana $as never reporte% for covera#e" nor $ere his
contributions<pre!iu!s re!itte% to the Social Securit Sste! 'SSS). Conse=uentl"
she $as %eprive% of the burial #rant an% pension benefits accruin# to the heirs of Tana
ha% he been reporte% for covera#e.
+ence" she prae% that the Co!!ission issue an or%er %irectin#>
2. respon%ents Conchita &al%e an% &ntero Ma#hari as her a%!inistrator to pa the
pre!iu! contributions of the %ecease% I#nacio Tana" Sr. an% report his na!e for SSS
covera#e? an%
(. the SSS to #rant petitioner Mar#arita Tana the funeral an% pension benefits %ue her.
2
The SSS" in a petition-in-intervention" reveale% that neither +%a. ,-./ nor respon%ents
&al%e an% Ma#hari $ere re#istere% !e!bers-e!ploers of the SSS" an%
conse=uentl" I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as never re#istere% as a !e!ber-e!ploee. 0i*e$ise"
SSS recor%s reflecte% that there $as no $a of verifin# $hether the alle#e% pre!iu!
contributions $ere re!itte% since the respon%ents $ere not re#istere% !e!bers-
e!ploers. ,ein# the a#enc char#e% $ith the i!ple!entation an% enforce!ent of the
provisions of the Social Securit 0a$" as a!en%e%" the SSS as*e% the Co!!ission;s
leave to intervene in the case.
(
In his ans$er" respon%ent &ntero Ma#hari raise% the %efense that he $as a !ere
e!ploee $ho $as hire% as an overseer of +%a. ,-./ so!eti!e %urin# crop ears
2:78-73 to 2:.2-.(" an% as such" his 5ob $as li!ite% to those %efine% for hi! b the
e!ploer $hich never involve% !atters relatin# to the SSS. +ence" he prae% that the
case a#ainst hi! be %is!isse% for lac* of cause of action.
@
For her part" respon%ent &al%e belie% the alle#ation that I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as her
e!ploee" a%!ittin# onl that he $as hire% inter!ittentl as an in%epen%ent contractor
to plo$" harro$" or burro$ +%a. No. &u%it ,-23-M. Tana use% his o$n carabao an% other
i!ple!ents" an% he follo$e% his o$n sche%ule of $or* hours. &al%e further alle#e%
that she never e6ercise% control over the !anner b $hich Tana perfor!e% his $or* as
an in%epen%ent contractor. Moreover" &al%e averre% that $a bac* in 2:.2" the
1niversit of the Philippines ha% alrea% ter!inate% the lease over +%a. ,-23-M an%
she ha% since surren%ere% possession thereof to the 1niversit of the Philippines.
Conse=uentl" I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as no lon#er hire% to $or* thereon startin# in crop
ear 2:.2-.(" $hile he $as never contracte% to $or* in +%a. No. &u%it ,-./. She also
prae% for the %is!issal of the case consi%erin# that I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as never her
e!ploee.
8
&fter hearin# both parties" the Social Securit Co!!ission issue% a Resolution on
9anuar (A" 2:AA" the %ispositive portion of $hich rea%s>
&fter a careful evaluation of the testi!onies of the petitioner an% her $itnesses" as $ell
as the testi!on of the respon%ent to#ether $ith her %ocu!entar evi%ences" this
Co!!ission fin%s that the late I#nacio Tana $as e!ploe% b respon%ent Conchita
&al%e fro! 9anuar 2:72 to March 2:.:. The testi!on of the petitioner $hich $as
corroborate% b &#aton 0iba$as an% &urelio Tana" co-$or*ers of the %ecease% I#nacio
Tana" sufficient establishe% the latter;s e!plo!ent $ith the respon%ent.
&s re#ar%s respon%ent &ntero Ma#hari" he is absolve% fro! liabilit because he is a
!ere e!ploee of Conchita &al%e.
PREMISES CONSIDERED" this Co!!ission fin%s an% so hol%s that the late I#nacio
Tana ha% been e!ploe% continuousl fro! 9anuar 2:72 to March 2:.: in +%a. ,-./
1
an% +%a. ,-23-M $hich are o$ne% an% lease%" respectivel" b respon%ent Conchita
'Concepcion) &al%e $ith a salar base% on the Mini!u! Ba#e prevailin# %urin# his
e!plo!ent.
Not havin# reporte% the petitioner;s husban% for covera#e $ith the SSS" respon%ent
Conchita 'Concepcion) &al%e is" therefore" liable for the pa!ent of %a!a#es
e=uivalent to the %eath benefits in the a!ount of P."/7..8/ plus the a!ount of P.3/.//
representin# funeral benefit or a total of P."A2..8/.
Further" the SSS is or%ere% to pa to the petitioner her accrue% pension coverin# the
perio% after the 3-ear #uarantee% perio% correspon%in# to the e!ploer;s liabilit.
SO ORDERED.C
3
Respon%ent &al%e file% a !otion for reconsi%eration
7
$hich the Co!!ission %enie% for
lac* of !erit in an Or%er %ate% Nove!ber @" 2:AA.
.
Not satisfie% $ith the Co!!ission;s rulin#" &al%e appeale% to the Court of &ppeals"
%oc*ete% as C&-4.R. SP No. 278(." raisin# the follo$in# assi#n!ent of errors>
I
The Social Securit Co!!ission erre% in not fin%in# that there is sufficient
evi%ence to sho$ that>
'a) The %ecease% I#nacio Tana" Sr. never $or*e% in the far!lan% of
respon%ent-appellant situate% in Ponteve%ra" 0a Carlota Cit"
other$ise *no$n as +acien%a No. &u%it ,-./" 'Ponteve%ra ,-./
Far! for short)" in an capacit" $hether as a %ail or !onthl laborer
or as in%epen%ent contractor?
'b) Durin# the ti!e that respon%ent-appellant $as leasin# a portion of
the lan% of the 1niversit of the Philippines" other$ise *no$n as
+acien%a &u%it No. ,-23-M" '0a 4ran5a ,-23 Far! for short)" the
%ecease% I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as hire% thereat on a Dpa*a$; basis" or
as an in%epen%ent contractor" perfor!in# the services of an Dara%or;
'Plo$er)" for $hich he $as proficient" usin# his o$n carabao an%
far!in# i!ple!ents on his o$n ti!e an% %iscretion $ithin the perio%
%e!an%e% b the nature of the 5ob contracte%.
II
The Social Securit Co!!ission erre% in hol%in# that there is no evi%ence
$hatsoever to sho$ that respon%ent-appellant $as no lon#er leasin# 0a
4ran5a ,-23 Far!.
III
The Social Securit Co!!ission erre% in not hol%in# that the %ecease% I#nacio
Tana" havin# been hire% as an in%epen%ent contractor on Dpa*a$; basis" %i%
not fall $ithin the covera#e of the Social Securit 0a$.
A
The Court of &ppeals ren%ere% 5u%#!ent in favor of respon%ent-appellant Conchita
&al%e an% %is!isse% the clai! of petitioner Mar#arita Tan.
The SSS" as intervenor-appellee" file% a Motion for Reconsi%eration" $hich $as %enie%
on the #roun% that the ar#u!ents a%vance% are C!ere reiterations of issues an%
ar#u!ents alrea% consi%ere% an% passe% upon in the %ecision in =uestion $hich are
utterl insufficient to 5ustif a !o%ification or reversal of sai% %ecision.C
:
+ence" this petition for revie$ on certiorari on the follo$in# assi#ne% errors>
2) The Court of &ppeals $as in error in rulin# that an e!ploee $or*in# un%er
the CpakyawC sste! is consi%ere% un%er the la$ to be an in%epen%ent
contractor.
() The Court of &ppeals $as in error in not #ivin# %ue consi%eration to the
fun%a!ental tenet that %oubts in the interpretation an% i!ple!entation of labor
an% social $elfare la$s shoul% be resolve% in favor of labor.
@) The Court of &ppeals $as in error in %isre#ar%in# the settle% rule that the
factual fin%in#s of a%!inistrative bo%ies on !atters $ithin their co!petence
shall not be %isturbe% b the courts.
8) The Court of &ppeals $as in error in rulin# that even #rantin# ar#uen%o that
I#nacio Tana $as e!ploe% b Conchita &al%e" such e!plo!ent %i% not
entitle hi! to co!pulsor covera#e since he $as not pai% an re#ular %ail
$a#e or basic pa an% he %i% not $or* for an uninterrupte% perio% of at least
si6 !onths in a ear in accor%ance $ith Section A'5) '2) of the SS 0a$.
The pivotal issue to be resolve% in this petition is $hether or not an a#ricultural laborer
$ho $as hire% on CpakyawC basis can be consi%ere% an e!ploee entitle% to
co!pulsor covera#e an% correspon%in# benefits un%er the Social Securit 0a$.
2
Petitioner" Social Securit Sste! 'or SSS)" ar#ues that the %ecease% I#nacio Tana" Sr."
$ho $as hire% b Conchita &al%e on CpakyawC basis to perfor! specific tas*s in her
su#arcane plantations" shoul% be consi%ere% an e!ploee? an% as such" his heirs are
entitle% to pension an% burial benefits.
The Court of &ppeals" ho$ever" rule% other$ise" reversin# the rulin# of the Social
Securit Co!!ission an% %eclarin# that the late I#nacio Tana" Sr. $as an in%epen%ent
contractor" an% in the absence of an e!ploer-e!ploee relationship bet$een Tana an%
&al%e" the latter cannot be co!pelle% to pa to his heirs the burial an% pension
benefits un%er the SS 0a$.
&t the outset" $e reiterate the $ell-settle% %octrine that the e6istence of an e!ploer-
e!ploee relationship is ulti!atel a =uestion of fact.
2/
&n% $hile it is the #eneral rule
that factual issues are not $ithin the province of the Supre!e Court" sai% rule is not
$ithout e6ception. In cases" such as this one" $here there are conflictin# an%
contra%ictor fin%in#s of fact" this Court has not hesitate% to scrutiniEe the recor%s to
%eter!ine the facts for itself.
22
Our %is=uisition of the facts shall be our #ui%e as to
$hose fin%in#s are supporte% b substantial evi%ence.
The !an%ator covera#e un%er the SSS 0a$ 'Republic &ct No. 2272" as a!en%e% b
PD 2(/( an% PD 27@7) is pre!ise% on the e6istence of an e!ploer-e!ploee
relationship" an% Section A'%) %efines an Ce!ploeeC as Can person $ho perfor!s
services for an e!ploer in $hich either or both !ental an% phsical efforts are use%
an% $ho receives co!pensation for such services $here there is an e!ploer-
e!ploee relationship.C The essential ele!ents of an e!ploer-e!ploee relationship
are> 'a) the selection an% en#a#e!ent of the e!ploee? 'b) the pa!ent of $a#es? 'c)
the po$er of %is!issal? an% '%) the po$er of control $ith re#ar% to the !eans an%
!etho%s b $hich the $or* is to be acco!plishe%" $ith the po$er of control bein# the
!ost %eter!inative factor.
2(
There is no =uestion that Tana $as selecte% an% his services en#a#e% b either &al%e
herself" or b &ntero Ma#hari" her overseer. Corollaril" the also hel% the prero#ative of
%is!issin# or ter!inatin# Tana;s e!plo!ent. The %ispute is in the =uestion of pa!ent
of $a#es. Clai!ant Mar#arita Tana an% her corroboratin# $itnesses testifie% that her
husban% $as pai% %ail $a#es Cper quincenaC as $ell as on CpakyawC basis. &al%e" on
the other han%" insists that Tana $as pai% solel on CpakyawC basis. To support her
clai!" she presente% parolls coverin# the perio% 9anuar of 2:.8 to 9anuar of 2:.7?
2@

an% Nove!ber of 2:.A to Ma of 2:.:.
28
& careful perusal of the recor%s rea%il sho$ that the e6hibits offere% are not co!plete"
an% are but a !ere sa!plin# of parolls. Bhile the na!es of the suppose% laborers
appear therein" their si#natures are no$here to be foun%. &n% $hile the cover the
ears 2:.3" 2:.7 an% portions of 2:.A an% 2:.:" the %o not cover the 2A-ear perio%
%urin# $hich Tana $as suppose% to have $or*e% in &al%e;s plantations. &lso an
a%!itte% fact is that these e6hibits onl cover +%a. ,./" &al%e havin# averre% that all
her recor%s an% parolls for the other plantation '+%a. ,-23-M) $ere either %estroe% or
lost.
23
To our !in%" these %ocu!ents are not onl sa%l lac*in#" the are also un$orth of
cre%ence. The fact that Tana;s na!e %oes not appear in the parolls for the ears 2:.3"
2:.7 an% part of 2:.A an% 2:.:" is no proof that he %i% not $or* in +%a. ,./ in the
ears 2:72 to 2:.8" an% the rest of 2:.A an% 2:.:. The veracit of the alle#e%
%ocu!ents as parolls are %oubtful consi%erin# that the laborers na!e% therein never
affi6e% their si#natures to sho$ that the actuall receive% the a!ounts in%icate%
correspon%in# to their na!es. Moreover" no recor% $as sho$n pertainin# to +%a. ,-23-
M" $here Tana $as suppose% to have $or*e%. Even &al%e a%!itte% that she hire%
Tana as CaradorC an% so!eti!es as laborer %urin# !illin# in +%a. ,-23-M.
27
In li#ht of
her inco!plete %ocu!entar evi%ence" &al%e;s %enial that Tana $as her e!ploee in
+%a. ,-./ or +%a. ,-23-M !ust fail.
In contrast to &al%e;s evi%ence" or lac* thereof" is Mar#arita Tana;s positive testi!on"
corroborate% b t$o '() other $itnesses. On the !atter of $a#es" the testifie% as
follo$s>
Mar#arita Tana>
F. Durin# the e!plo!ent of our late husban%" $as he pai% an $a#esG
&. Hes" he $as pai%.
F. Bhat $as the !anner of pa!ent of his salar" $as it on Cpa*a$C or %ail basisG
&. Dail basis.
F. +o$ !an ti!es %i% he receive his salar in a !onth;s ti!eG
&. ( ti!es.
F. Hou !ean" pa%a in +%a. ,-./ is ever 23 %asG
&. Hes" sir.
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
3
&TTH. 4&0V&N>
To prove that it is !aterial to the !ain =uestion because if ever the hacien%a !aintains
co!plete parolls of their e!ploees" then the bur%en of proof lies in the petitionerI..
+E&RIN4 OFFICER>
0et the $itness ans$er" if she *no$s.
BITNESS>
There $as no paroll" onl pa% paper.
&TTH. 4&0V&N> 'continuin#)
F. Bere the na!es of $or*ers of the hacien%a all liste% in that pa% paper ever
pa%aG
&. Hes" $e 5ust si#n on pa% paper because $e have no paroll to be si#ne%.
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
F. Bhat %o ou un%erstan% b parollG
&. Paroll is the list $here the $hole laborers are liste% an% receive their salaries.
F. &n% ho$ %i% that %iffer fro! the pa% paper $hich ou sai% ou si#ne%G
&. There is a %ifference.
F. Bhat is the %ifferenceG
&. In the paroll" at the en% there is a colu!n for si#nature but in the pa% paper" $e onl
si#n %irectl.
F. Di% it contain the a!ount that ou receiveG
&. Hes" sir.
F. &n% the %ate correspon%in# to the paroll pa%G
&. I a! not sure but it onl enu!erates our na!es an% then $e $ere #iven our salaries.
F. No$" %i% ou have a cop of thatG
&TTH. 4&0V&N>
Ob5ection" Hour +onor" it is not the petitioner $ho ha% a cop" it is usuall the o$ner
because the preparation of the parolls is %one b the e!ploer $hoI..
&TTH. 1N4CO>
That is $h I;! as*in# I..
+E&RIN4 OFFICER>
0et the $itness ans$er. Ob5ection overrule%.
BITNESS>
I %on;t have.
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
F. Bhen ou are receivin# %ail $a#e of P8.// ho$ !uch $as our =uincenal to#ether
$ith our husban%G
&. The hi#hest salar I receive% for ! o$n $as P@/.// in one =uincena.
F. Bhat about the salar of our husban%" ho$ !uchG
&. The sa!e.
F. Bas this P@/.// per =uincena later on increase%G
&. There $as an increase because for!erl it $as P8.// no$ it is PA.//.
4
F. In 2:.: ho$ !uch $as our husban%;s salar per =uincenaG
&. In one =uincena ! husban% receives P7/.// $hile I onl receive P@/.//.
2.
&4&TON 0I,&B&S>
F. Durin# our e!plo!ent" %o ou si#n parolls everti!e ou %ra$ our salarG
&. Be si#n on inter!e%iate pa%.
F. Hou !ean" the practice of the hacien%a is to have the na!es of the laborers
receivin# that salaries liste% on that inter!e%iate pa%G
&. Hes" sir.
2A
&1RE0IO T&N&>
F. , the $a" ho$ !an ti!es %i% ou receive our salaries in a !onthG
&. Be receive our $a#es t$ice a !onth that is" ever 23 %as.
F. Di% ou si#n parolls everti!e ou receive% our salariesG
&. In the pa% paper as substitute paroll.
F. Do ou *no$ if all the $or*ers of the hacien%a $ere liste% in that parollsG
&. Hes" sir.
F. Bho $as in char#e in #ivin# our salariesG
&. &ntero Ma#hari.
2:
These $itnesses %i% not $aver in their assertion that $hile Tana $as hire% b &al%e as
an CaradorC on CpakyawC basis" he $as also pai% a %ail $a#e $hich &al%e;s overseer
%isburse% ever fifteen '23) %as. It is also un%ispute% that the $ere !a%e to
ac*no$le%#e receipt of their $a#es b si#nin# on sheets of rule% paper" $hich are
%ifferent fro! those presente% b &al%e as %ocu!entar evi%ence. In fine" $e fin% that
the testi!onies of Mar#arita Tana" &#aton 0iba$as an% &urelio Tana prevail over the
inco!plete an% inconsistent %ocu!entar evi%ence of &al%e.
In the parallel case of Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC" the petitioners ar#ue%
that since Manuel P. Esita;s na!e %oes not appear in the parolls of the co!pan it
necessaril !eans that he $as not an e!ploee. This Court hel%>
CPetitioners further ar#ue that Dco!plainant !iserabl faile% to present an %ocu!entar
evi%ence to prove his e!plo!ent. There $as no ti!esheet" pa slip an%<or
paroll<cash voucher to spea* of. &bsence of these !aterial %ocu!ents are necessaril
fatal to co!plainant;s cause.;
Be %o not a#ree. No particular for! of evi%ence is re=uire% to prove the e6istence of an
e!ploer-e!ploee relationship. &n co!petent an% relevant evi%ence to prove the
relationship !a be a%!itte%. For" if onl %ocu!entar evi%ence $oul% be re=uire% to
sho$ that relationship" no sche!in# e!ploer $oul% ever be brou#ht before the bar of
5ustice" as no e!ploer $oul% $ish to co!e out $ith an trace of the ille#alit he has
authore% consi%erin# that it shoul% ta*e !uch $ei#htier proof to invali%ate a $ritten
instru!ent. Thus" as in this case $here the e!ploer-e!ploee relationship bet$een
petitioners an% Esita $as sufficientl prove% b testi!onial evi%ence" the absence of
ti!e sheet" ti!e recor% or paroll has beco!e inconse=uential.C
(/
'1n%erscorin# ours)
Clearl" then" the testi!onial evi%ence of the clai!ant an% her $itnesses constitute
positive an% cre%ible evi%ence of the e6istence of an e!ploer-e!ploee relationship
bet$een Tana an% &al%e. &s the e!ploer" the latter is %ut-boun% to *eep faithful an%
co!plete recor%s of her business affairs" not the least of $hich $oul% be the salaries of
the $or*ers. &n% et" the %ocu!ents presente% have been selective" fe$ an%
inco!plete in substance an% content. Conse=uentl" &al%e has faile% to convince us
that" in%ee%" Tana $as not her e!ploee.
The ar#u!ent is raise% that Tana is an in%epen%enent contractor because he $as hire%
an% pai% $a#es on CpakyawC basis. Be fin% this assertion to be specious for several
reasons.
First" $hile Tana $as so!eti!es hire% as an CaradorC or plo$er for inter!ittent perio%s"
he $as hire% to %o other tas*s in &al%e;s plantations. &al%e herself a%!itte% as !uch"
althou#h she !ini!iEe% the e6tent of Tana;s labors. On the other han%" the clai!ant an%
her $itnesses $ere %irect an% fir! in their testi!onies" to $it>
M&R4&RIT& T&N&>
F. Bas our late husban%;s $or* continuous or notG
5
&. +is $or* $as continuous e6cept on Sun%as.
F. Mrs. Bitness" in 9anuar 2:72" ho$ !an %as in a $ee* %i% our late husban%
$or*G
&. 8 $ee*s in 9anuar 2:72.
F. &n% ho$ !an !onths for that ear %i% he $or*G
&. 2( !onths.
F. Is this $or*in# pattern of our husban%" consi%erin# that ou testifie% that he $or*e%
continuousl" the sa!e all throu#hout his e!plo!ent fro! 2:72 to 2:.AG
&. Hes" he $or*e% continuousl fro! 2:72 to 2:.A for 7 %as a $ee*" 8 $ee*s a !onth
an% 2( !onths each ear.
F. Mrs. Bitness" ho$ !an !onths %i% our husban% $or* in 2:.: consi%erin# that he
%ie% in 2:.:G
&. @ !onths.
F. Bhat $as the nature of the $or* of our late husban% fro! 2:72 until his %eath in
2:.:G
&. Cuttin# canes" haulin# canes $ith the use of canecarts" plo$in#" haulin# fertiliEers"
$ee%in# an% stubble cleanin#.
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
F. No$" the other co-$or*ers of ours" ou sai% the $ere &#aton 0iba$as" Narciso
DueJas" 9uan DueJas" an% &urelio Tana" $hat $ere their 5obsG
&. +aulin# canes b the use of bull carts an% cuttin# canes. Their $or*s are the sa!e
$ith that of ! husban%;s.
F. ,ut ou !entione% a!on# the %uties of our husban% as Cara%orC !eanin# K plo$in#
the fiel%sG
&. Hes" he $as also plo$in# because that is one of his %uties.
(2
&4&TON 0I,&B&S>
F. +o$ about petitioner Mar#arita Tana an% the late I#nacio Tana" $ere the re#ular
$or*ers" or e6tra $or*ersG
&. The $ere re#ular $or*ers.
F. In our case" Mr. Bitness" consi%erin# that accor%in# to ou" ou are onl a relief
$or*er" please infor! the Co!!ission ho$ !an !onths each ear fro! 2:72 to 2:A8
%i% ou $or* in +%a. ,-./ an% +%a. ,-23M $ith Conchita &al%eG
&. Durin# !illin# season" I $or*e% ( !onths" %urin# cultivation if the are short of
plo$ers then the $oul% call !e to $or* for at least @ !onths as a plo$er.
F. So" all in all" each ear" fro! 2:72 to 2:A8 our avera#e $or*in# !onths in +%a. ,-
./ an% ,-23M are 3 !onths each earG
&. Hes" sir.
F. Mr. Bitness" to prove that ou have $or*e% there" $ill ou please infor! at least 3
laborers of +%a. ,-./ an% ,-23M of Conchita &al%eG
&. 9uan DueJas" Narciso DueJas" &urelio Tana" I#nacio an% Mar#arita Tana.
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
F. Bill ou please infor! the Co!!ission if the %ecease% I#nacio Tana $hich is
accor%in# to ou" $as a re#ular $or*er of the ( hacien%as" if ho$ !an !onths %i% he
$or* %urin# lifeti!e fro! 2:72 until he %ie% in 2:.:G
&. +is $or* $as continuous.
F. &n% b continuous ou !ean he $or*e% strai#ht 2( !onths each ear e6cept in
2:.:G
&. +e $or*e% onl for 2/ !onths because the ( !onths are alrea% preparation for
cultivation.
6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
F. &n% accor%in# to ou" in a ear;s ti!e" ou $or*e% onl for at least 3 !onths in +%a.
,-./ an% ,-23M" is that correctG
&. Hes.
F. &n% %urin# this ti!e that ou are $or*in# in our ricelan% ou $ill a#ree $ith !e that
ou %o not *no$ $hether the laborers of this +%a. ,-./ an% +a% ,-23M are reall
$or*in# because ou are %evotin# our ti!e in our ricelan%" is that correctG
&. I *ne$ because the place of their $or* is 5ust near ! house" it is alon# the $a.
F. +o$ about $hen the canes are alrea% tall" can ou actuall see the $or*ers in +%a.
,-./ an% ,-23M $hen ou are bus at our ricelan%G
&. Hes" because the have to pass in ! house.
F. Is there no other passa#e in that hacien%a e6cept that roa% in front of our houseG
&. Hes.
F. &re ou sure about thatG
&. Hes" I a! sure.
((
&1RE0IO T&N&>
F. Do ou *no$ $hat is the $or* of the petitioner %urin# the ti!e $hen ou $ere
to#ether $or*in# in the fiel%G
&. Be $ere $or*in# to#ether" li*e cuttin# an% loa%in# canes" hoein#" $ee%in#" applin#
fertiliEers" %i##in# canals an% plo$in#.
F. Durin# our e!plo!ent in the sai% hacien%a $here $ere ou resi%in#G
&. There insi%e the hacien%a.
F. Bhat about the petitionerG
&. The sa!e.
F. +o$ far is our house fro! the house of the petitionerG
&. &bout (/ ar!s-len#th.
F. +o$ far is +%a. ,-./ fro! +%a. ,-23.
&. It is ver near it is %ivi%e% b the roa%.
F. Bhat roa% are ou referrin# toG
&. +i#h$a roa% fro! ,aran#a ,uenavista to 0a 4ran5a.
F. Durin# our e!plo!ent $ill ou please infor! the Co!!ission the fre=uenc of
$or* of the late I#nacio TanaG
&. 8 $ee*s a !onth" 7 %as a $ee*" 2( !onths a ear.
F. Bh is it that ou are in a position to infor! the Co!!ission about the perio% of
e!plo!ent of I#nacio TanaG
&. ,ecause $e $ere to#ether $or*in#.
(@
It is in%ubitable" therefore" that Tana $or*e% continuousl for &al%e" not onl as
CaradorC on CpakyawC basis" but as a re#ular far!han%" %oin# bac*brea*in# 5obs for
&al%e;s business. There is no shre% of evi%ence to sho$ that Tana $as onl a
seasonal $or*er" !uch less a !i#rant $or*er. &ll $itnesses" inclu%in# &al%e herself"
testifie% that Tana an% his fa!il resi%e% in the plantation. If he $as a !ere CpakyawC
$or*er or in%epen%ent contractor" then there $oul% be no reason for &al%e to allo$
the! to live insi%e her propert for free. The onl lo#ical e6planation is that he $as
$or*in# for !ost part of the ear e6clusivel for &al%e" in return for $hich the latter
#ratuitousl allo$e% Tana an% his fa!il to resi%e in her propert.
The Court of &ppeals" in fin%in# for &al%e" relie% on the clai!ant;s an% her $itnesses;
a%!ission that her husban% $as hire% as an CaradorC on CpakyawC basis" but it faile% to
appreciate the rest of their testi!onies. 9ust because he $as" for short perio%s of ti!e"
hire% on CpakyawC basis %oes not necessaril !ean that he $as not e!ploe% to %o
other tas*s for the re!ain%er of the ear. Even &al%e a%!itte% that Tana %i% other 5obs
$hen he $as not hire% to plo$. Conse=uentl" the conclusion culle% fro! their
7
testi!onies to the effect that Tana $as !ainl an% solel an CaradorC $as at best a
selective appreciation of portions of the entire evi%ence. It $as the Social Securit
Co!!ission that too* into consi%eration all the %ocu!entar an% testi!onial evi%ence
on recor%.
Secon%l" &al%e !a%e !uch a%o of her clai! that Tana coul% not be her e!ploee
because she e6ercise% no control over his $or* hours an% !etho% of perfor!in# his
tas* as Carador.C It is also an a%!itte% fact that Tana" 9r. use% his o$n carabao an%
tools. Thus" she conten%s that" applin# the Ccontrol test"C Tana $as not an e!ploee
but an in%epen%ent contractor.
& closer scrutin of the recor%s" ho$ever" reveals that $hile &al%e herself !a not
have %irectl i!pose% on Tana the !anner an% !etho%s to follo$ in perfor!in# his
tas*s" she %i% e6ercise control throu#h her overseer.
,e that as it !a" the po$er of control refers !erel to the e6istence of the po$er. It is
not essential for the e!ploer to actuall supervise the perfor!ance of %uties of the
e!ploee? it is sufficient that the for!er has a ri#ht to $iel% the po$er.
(8
Certainl"
&al%e" on her o$n or throu#h her overseer" $iel%e% the po$er to hire or %is!iss" to
chec* on the $or*" be it in pro#ress or =ualit" of the laborers. &s the o$ner<lessee of
the plantations" she possesse% the po$er to control everone $or*in# therein an%
everthin# ta*in# place therein.
9urispru%ence provi%es other e=uall i!portant consi%erations $hich support the
conclusion that Tana $as not an in%epen%ent contractor. First" Tana cannot be sai% to
be en#a#e% in a %istinct occupation or business. +is carabao an% plo$ !a be useful in
his livelihoo%" but he is not in%epen%entl en#a#e% in the business of far!in# or
plo$in#. Secon%" he ha% been $or*in# e6clusivel for &al%e for ei#hteen '2A) ears
prior to his %e!ise. Thir%" there is no %ispute that &al%e $as in the business of #ro$in#
su#arcane in the t$o plantations for co!!ercial purposes. There is also no =uestion
that plo$in# or preparin# the soil for plantin# is a !a5or part of the re#ular business of
&al%e.
1n%er the circu!stances" the relationship bet$een &al%e an% Tana has !ore of the
attributes of e!ploer-e!ploee than that of an in%epen%ent contractor hire% to perfor!
a specific pro5ect. In the case of Dy e! "eng v. International La#or"
(3
$e cite% our lon#-
stan%in# rulin# in Sunripe Coconut Products Co. v. Court o$ Industrial Relations" to $it>
CBhen a $or*er possesses so!e attributes of an e!ploee an% others of an
in%epen%ent contractor" $hich !a*e hi! fall $ithin an inter!e%iate area" he !a be
classifie% un%er the cate#or of an e!ploee $hen the econo!ic facts of the relations
!a*e it !ore nearl one of e!plo!ent than one of in%epen%ent business enterprise
$ith respect to the en%s sou#ht to be acco!plishe%.C '1n%erscorin# Ours)
(7
Be fin% the above-=uote% rulin# to be applicable in the case of Tana. There is
prepon%erance of evi%ence to support the conclusion that he $as an e!ploee rather
than an in%epen%ent contractor.
The Court of &ppeals also erre% $hen it rule%" on the alternative" that if ever Tana $as
an e!ploee" he $as still ineli#ible for co!pulsor covera#e because he $as not pai%
an re#ular %ail $a#e an% he %i% not $or* for an uninterrupte% perio% of at least si6
!onths in a ear in accor%ance $ith Section A'5) 'I) of the Social Securit 0a$. There is
substantial testi!onial evi%ence to prove that Tana $as pai% a %ail $a#e" an% he
$or*e% continuousl for !ost part of the ear" even $hile he $as also occasionall
calle% on to plo$ the soil on a CpakyawC basis. &s a far! laborer $ho has $or*e%
e6clusivel for &al%e for ei#hteen '2A) ears" Tana shoul% be entitle% to co!pulsor
covera#e un%er the Social Securit 0a$" $hether his service $as continuous or bro*en.
Mar#arita Tana alle#e% that SSS pre!iu!s $ere %e%ucte% fro! Tana;s salar" testifin#"
thus>
F. Bere there %e%uctions fro! the salaries of our husban% $hile he $as e!ploe%
$ith the respon%ent fro! 2:72 to 2:.:G
&. Hes" there $ere %e%uctions but I %o not *no$ because the $ere the ones %e%uctin#
it.%&wp!i%
F. Bh %o ou *no$ that his salaries $ere %e%ucte% for SSS pre!iu!sG
&. ,ecause &ntero Ma#hari as*e% !e an% ! husban% to si#n SSS papers an% he tol%
us that the $ill ta*e care of everthin#.
F. +o$ !uch $ere the %e%uctions ever pa%aG
&. I %o not *no$ ho$ !uch because our %ail $a#e $as onl P8.//.
(.
&#aton 0iba$as" also testifie%>
F. Mr. Bitness" in our 23-%a $a#es %o ou notice an %e%uctions fro! itG
&. There $ere %e%uctions an% $e $ere infor!e% that it $as for SSS.
F. Mr. Bitness" since $hen $ere there %e%uctions fro! our salariesG
8
&. Since 2:72.
F. 1p to $henG
&. 1p to 2:.:.
F. Mr. Bitness" are ou a !e!ber of the SSSG
&. No.
F. +o$ about petitioner" if ou *no$G
&. No" also.
F. Bhat happene% to the %e%uctions %i% ou not as* our e!ploerG
&. Be as*e% but $e $ere ans$ere% that $e $ere bein# re!itte% for our SSS.
F. Di% ou not verifG
&. No" because I 5ust relie% on their state!ent.
(A
&al%e faile% to counter these positive assertions. Even on the assu!ption that there
$ere no %e%uctions" the fact re!ains that Tana $as an% shoul% have been covere%
un%er the Social Securit 0a$. The circu!stances of his e!plo!ent place hi! outsi%e
the a!bit of the e6ception provi%e% in Section A'5) of Republic &ct No. 2722" as
a!en%e% b Section 8 of R.&. (73A.
&ERE!ORE" in vie$ of all the fore#oin#" the Decision of the Court of &ppeals in C.&.-
4.R. SP No. 278(. an% the Resolution %ate% 9une 28" 2::2 are hereb REVERSED
an% SET &SIDE. The Resolution of the Social Securit Co!!ission in SSC Case No.
AA32 is REINST&TED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
9