The Supreme Court ruled that Asiapro Cooperative is the employer of its owners-members and is liable for their SSS contributions. Asiapro selects the owners-members, pays them wages, has the power to dismiss them, and controls their work, demonstrating an employer-employee relationship as defined by law. While Asiapro argues there is no such relationship, the elements establishing one are present based on the service contracts between Asiapro and Stanfilco.
The Supreme Court ruled that Asiapro Cooperative is the employer of its owners-members and is liable for their SSS contributions. Asiapro selects the owners-members, pays them wages, has the power to dismiss them, and controls their work, demonstrating an employer-employee relationship as defined by law. While Asiapro argues there is no such relationship, the elements establishing one are present based on the service contracts between Asiapro and Stanfilco.
The Supreme Court ruled that Asiapro Cooperative is the employer of its owners-members and is liable for their SSS contributions. Asiapro selects the owners-members, pays them wages, has the power to dismiss them, and controls their work, demonstrating an employer-employee relationship as defined by law. While Asiapro argues there is no such relationship, the elements establishing one are present based on the service contracts between Asiapro and Stanfilco.
AND COLLECTION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM Respondents. GR No. 170735, 2007 Facts of the Case Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia, Eduardo de Leon, Ricardo de Leon, Pacita Fernandez, and Consuelo Villanueva were directors of Impact Corporation. The corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum tube containers and operated two factories. Records show that around 1978, Impact Corporation started encountering financial problems. By 1980, The Ministry of Labor, noted the inability of Impact Corporation to pay wages, 13th month pay, and SSS remittances due to cash liquidity problems. A portion of the order reads: On the claims of unpaid wages, unpaid 13th month pay and non- remittance of loan amortization and Issue 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. RULING Yes. Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia, as sole surviving director of Impact Corporation is hereby ORDERED to pay for the collected and unremitted SSS contributions of Impact Corporation. Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law imposes a civil liability for any act or omission pertaining to the violation Republic of the Philippines represented by the Social Security System v. Asiapro Cooperative
(G.R. No. 172101)
Facts: Respondent Asiapro Cooperative is composed of owners-members with primary objectives of providing them savings and credit facilities and livelihood services. In discharge of said objectives, Asiapro entered into several service contracts with Stanfilco. Sometime later, the cooperative owners-members requested Stanfilcos help in registering them with SSS and remitting their contributions. Petitioner SSS informed Asiapro that being actually a manpower contractor supplying employees to Stanfilco, it must be the one to register itself with SSS as an employer and remit the contributions. Respondent continuously ignoring the demand of SSS the latter filed before the SSC. Asiapro alleges that there exists no employer- employee relationship between it and its owners-members. SSC ruled in favor of SSS. On appeal, CA reversed the decision. Issue: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between Asiapro and its owners-members. Ruling: YES. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the workers conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. All the aforesaid elements are present in this case. First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the exclusive discretion in the selection and engagement of the owners-members as well as its team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco. Second. It cannot be doubted then that those stipends or shares 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. Third. It is also stated in the above-mentioned Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the power to investigate, discipline and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who were rendering services at Stanfilco. Fourth. In the case at bar, it is the respondent cooperative which has the sole control over the manner and means of performing the services under the Service Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods of work. Also, the respondent cooperative is solely and entirely responsible for its owners-members, team leaders and other representatives at Stanfilco. All these clearly prove that, indeed, there is an employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members.
The 5 Elements of the Highly Effective Debt Collector: How to Become a Top Performing Debt Collector in Less Than 30 Days!!! the Powerful Training System for Developing Efficient, Effective & Top Performing Debt Collectors