POBLETE CONSTRUCTION vs ASIAIN

G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967

FACTS: Miguel w)s )n employee of petitioner comp)ny from 1956 until his
de)th on November 22, 1959, with ) monthly s)l)ry of P300. Upon his
de)th his widow, Judith filed ) petition before the SSC )g)inst the
comp)ny )nd its m)n)ger, Domingo Poblete to recover the following sum:
(1) P3,600.00 equiv)lent to one ye)r's s)l)ry of the dece)sed; (2)
P600.00 representing his unp)id s)l)ry for two months; (3) P288.00 c)sh
received from l)borers )s contribution to the f)mily of the dece)sed xxx.
Petitoners moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds th)t the SSC h)d
no jurisdiction over the subject-m)tter )nd th)t Judith h)d no c)p)city to
sue. The Commission denied the MD. L)ter, SSC decl)red itself without
jurisdiction to entert)in the cl)ims in the petition except the one for the
sum of P3,600, which it )w)rded pursu)nt to SS L)w. MR of petitioners w)s
denied, )nd on PR before the CA, CA, upon proper )pplic)tion issued ) writ
of PI to stop )ll further proceedings including execution of the )w)rd.

ISSUE: WON SSC h)d jurisdiction to entert)in the cl)im of P3,600

RULING: YES

RATIONALE: It )ppe)rs th)t )lthough the dece)sed Miguel Asi)in h)d

been employed in the Poblete Construction Comp)ny since 1956 )nd h)d
)ccomplished SSS Form E-1 (Employees' D)te Record) )nd tr)nsmitted
the s)me to the s)id comp)ny's M)nil) Office, it w)s never filed with the
Soci)l Security System for the re)son, )ccording to the comp)ny, th)t he
refused to h)ve his sh)re of the corresponding monthly contributions
deducted from his s)l)ry. Upon these f)cts the comp)ny m)int)ins th)t
the dece)sed w)s not ) member of the System when he died )nd hence
the )djudic)tion of the cl)im for d)m)ges under Section 24 does not
pert)in to the Commission but to the courts of justice.

There is no question th)t the dece)sed Miguel Asi)in w)s subject to

compulsory cover)ge in the SSS. It wEs the duty of the employer to
"report immediEtely to the System" his nEme, Ege, civil stEtus,
occupEtion, sElEry End dependents. CompliEnce with this duty did
not depend upon the employee's willingness to give his shEre of
the contribution. Section 24 is mEndEtory, to such En extent thEt
if the employee should die or become sick or disEbled without the
report hEving been mEde by the employer, the lEtter is liEble for
En Emount equivElent to the benefits to which the employee would
hEve been entitled hEd such report been mEde. It is true th)t the
provision uses the word "d)m)ges" in referring to the )mount th)t m)y
be cl)imed. But this f)ct )lone does not me)n th)t the SSC l)cks
jurisdiction to )w)rd the s)me. Section 5(+) of the Soci+l Security Act
provides th+t "the filing, determin+tion +nd settlement of cl+ims sh+ll
be governed by the rules +nd regul+tions promulg+ted by the
Commission;" +nd the rules +nd regul+tions thus promulg+ted st+te
th+t "the effectivity of membership in the System, +s well +s the fin+l
determin+tion +nd settlement of cl+ims, sh+ll be vested in the
Commission." The term "cl)ims" is bro)d enough to include ) cl)im for
"d)m)ges" under Section 24. Otherwise )n employer could nullify the
jurisdiction of the Commission by the simple expedient of not m)king )
report )s required by s)id Section. The collection of the employee's sh)re
is ) duty imposed by l)w, )nd his unwillingness to h)ve it deducted from
his s)l)ry does not excuse the employer's f)ilure to m)ke the report
)fores)id. It is precisely in this situ)tion th)t the employer is li)ble, )nd
there is no question )s to the )mount of such li)bility in this c)se.