Haveria vs. SSS, et al.G.R. No.

181154, August 22, 2018

Facts: Haveria was employed with the SSS from May 1958 to July1984. During his employment, he became a member of,
and waselected as an officer/treasurer of the SSS Employees' Association(SSSEA). He was reported by the SSSEA as
an employee for SSScoverage and Haveria's membership was approved. Thereafter, theSSSEA remitted his monthly
contributions from May 1966 toDecember 1981.After his employment with the SSS, Haveria was employed
with private entities, Stop Light Diners from July 1989 to December 1996 and then with First Ivory Pharma Trade
from January toMarch 1997. He earned a total of 281 monthly contributions.Haveria reached retirement age (60
years old) on August 8, 1997.In June 2002, Haveria received a letter from the SSS which orderedthe suspension of Haveria's retirement
benefits. The SSS held thatthey were not entitled to any benefits under the Social Security Actof 1997 or Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 8282 (SS Law) as there was noemployment relationship between the two and the SSSEA.This prompted Haveria to file
a letter-petition with the SocialSecurity Commission (SSC) for the declaration of validity of
hisSSS membership and restoration of his monthly pension. Heargued that his monthly contributions to the SSS
were valid as hewas an employee of the SSSEA. He also averred that the SSS
hadr e g i s t e r e d   h i m   a s   a   m e m b e r   a n d   a c c e p t e d   h i s   m o n t h l y contributions.I n   a   R e s o l u t i
o n   d a t e d D e c e m b e r   7 ,   2 0 0 5 ,   t h e S S C   h e l d   t h a t Haveria's coverage under the SSS was erroneous. It
pointed outthat Haveria was not an employee of the SSSEA, but of the SSS, agovernment agency. It also held that
there was no employmentrelationship between Haveria and the SSSEA and that labor unionsor associations are
not employers with respect to its officers
or m e m b e r s .   T h e   S S C   a l s o   s a i d   t h a t   H a v e r i a   c a n n o t   a l s o   c l a i m coverage under the expanded
coverage scheme of the SSS whichallowed the inclusion of self-employed workers, precisely becausehe claimed coverage as
an employee of the
SSSEA.I n   t h e   i n t e r e s t   o f   j u s t i c e ,   t h e   S S C   h e l d   t h a t   t h e   c o n t r i b u t i o n s r e m i t t e d   b y   t h e   S S S E A  
m a y   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   a s   v o l u n t a r y contributions after March 1997, when last employer First
IvoryPharma Trade remitted its final contribution.Haveria filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) which was denied by
the SSC in its Order dated November 15, 2006. Thus, Haveriafiled a petition for review on certiorari to the CA.The CA affirmed the
SSC's Resolution and Order. The CA heldthat Haveria was not an employee of the SSSEA. The CA pointedout that there
was no employment relationship between the two;and that Haveria was merely an officer of the labor association.While an
officer of the SSSEA, Haveria was a full-time employeeof the SSS, a government agency. The CA said that a
governmentemployee cannot be an employee of a private entity at the sametime. As such, the SSS contributions made by
Haveria should beconsidered erroneous.

Issue: WON there is a employer-employee relationship betweenSSSEA and Haveria, thus entitles him to receive monthly pension.

Ruling: Haveria was reported by the SSSEA as an employee, and h e   c l a i m s   c o v e r a g e   a s   a   c o m p u l s o r y

member of the SSS. As
c o r r e c t l y   h e l d   b y   t h e   S S C   a n d   C A ,   t h e   S S S E A ,   a   l a b o r   organization, cannot be considered
an employer under the law. TheLabor Code expressly excludes labor organizations from
thed e f i n i t i o n   o f   a n   e m p l o y e r ,   e x c e p t   w h e n   t h e y   d i r e c t l y   h i r e employees to render services for the union
or association. Asidefrom his bare allegation that he was an employee of the SSSEA,Haveria did not present any other
fact to substantiate his claim of employment with the SSSEA. He did not state his day-to-dayduties or
responsibilities and work hours; he did not even
present proof of employment such as pay slips and contract of employment. Thus, the SSSEA was not an employer and
Haveriawas not its employee, but merely a member or officer thereof.As a government employee, Haveria would have been qualified
for voluntary coverage under Section 9 (b) of R.A. No. 1161, had heregistered as a voluntary member while
working with the SSS.How ever, he was registered as a compulsory member on themistaken claim that he
was an employee of a private entity, the SSSEA. Consequently, his compulsory coverage while supposedlyemployed
with the SSSEA was erroneous.Thus, as correctly found by the SSC and affirmed by the CA, Haveria's compulsory
coverage with the SSS validly started only in1989 when he was reported as an employee of private employer,Stop Light Diners
until his retirement with his second privateemployer, First Ivory Pharma Trade, Inc. in 1997.