Labor Standards SSS Cases

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    1/77

    EN BANC 

    [G.R. No. L-13555. May 30, 1962.]

    THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner , vs . THE HON. JUDGE FROILAN

    BAYONA, ET AL., respondents.

    Crispin D. Baizas and Solicitor General for petitioner.

    M . Herras and D. F . Guytingco for respondents.

    SYLLABUS 

    1. WORDS AND PHRASES; IRREPARABLE INJURY. — Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rulerelative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with

    reasonable accuracy (Crouch vs. Central Labor Council, 83 ALR, 193). An irreparable injury which a court of

    equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce hurt,

    inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard of

    measurement (Phipps vs. Rogue River Valley Canal Co., 7 ALR, 741). An irreparable injury to authorize an

    injunction consists of "a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property it affects, either physically or in the

    character in which it has been held and enjoined, or when the property has some peculiar quality or use, so that

    its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof" (Dunker vs. Field and Tub Club, 92 P.,

    502). It does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to the difficulty of

    measuring the damages inflicted. If full compensation can be obtained by way of damages, equity will not apply

    the remedy of injunction (28 Am. Jur., 244; 43 C.J.S., 427, 446).

    D E C I S I O N 

    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J p:

    On August 30, 1957, the Faculty Club of the University of Santo Tomas, Inc. and San Beda College Lay Faculty

    Club, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of

    Manila alleging in substance that they have existing agreements with their respective employers — the University

    of Santo Tomas and San Beda College — for the establishment of gratuity and retirement funds which have been

    in operation prior to September 1, 1957; that the Social Security Commission tried to compel them to integrate

    their private systems into the Social Security System on said date; that inasmuch as their private systems grant

    more benefits to the members than the Social Security System the integration of their private systems would

    deprive their members of property without due process of law, as well as would impair the obligation of their

    contract to the detriment of the members. Hence, they prayed for the issuance of preliminary injunction ex

     parte commanding the Social Security Commission to desist from compelling them to integrate during the

    pendency of the case on the ground that, unless said Commission is enjoined, it might enforce the penal

    provisions of the Social Security Act.

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    2/77

    On August 30, 1957, the court a quo, Judge Froilan Bayona, presiding, issued ex parte a writ of preliminary

    injunction enjoining the Social Security Commission from compelling the integration sought for.

    On September 7, 1957, the Social Security Commission moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction on the

    following grounds: (1) a statute is presumed constitutional; (2) there is no irreparable injury shown to justify the

    issuance of injunction; (3) injunction does not lie against laws for public welfare; (4) injunction does not lie against

    enforcement of penal laws; (5) injunction does not lie to stop the collection of contributions under the SocialSecurity Law; and (6) the preliminary injunction was barred by laches.

    The motion to dissolve was denied. A motion for reconsideration of the order having likewise been denied, the

    Social Security Commission filed the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.

    In charging respondent judge with having acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary

    injunction ex parte, petitioner advances the following reasons:

    1. Respondent judge enjoined the enforcement of the Social Security Law for the benefit of an

    insignificant few who had manifested their defiance against its implementation. It is his

    sworn duty to enforce the law and not to tamper with it. The task of suspending the

    operation of a social legislation is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an

    interference with the official acts not only of the duly elected representatives of the

    people but also of the highest magistrate of the land.

    2. The order of respondent judge in effect enjoined the enforcement of a penal statute which he

    has no power to do. The rule is that equity will not intervene for the purpose of

    enjoining the enforcement of a penal statute even if the same is alleged to be

    unconstitutional since such invalidity should be interposed as a defense in a

    prosecution based on such statute.

    3. Respondent judge cannot enjoin the collection of contributions under the Social Security Law

    for the same have the category of taxes which are collectible under the National

    Internal Revenue Code.

    4. A writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent great and irreparable injury.

    The injury must be actual, positive, substantial and irremediable at law. Respondent

    corporations have not shown that they would suffer such injury if the injunction were not

    issued.

    5. The order of respondent judge places the government in a worse position than a private

    litigant for the latter may secure the lifting of an injunction by filing a counterbond. Such

    right cannot be exercised by the government for the latter is not by law required to file a

    bond.

    Respondent corporations, on the other hand, advance the following arguments in refutation of those adduced by

    petitioner:

    1. It is erroneous to state that the writ of preliminary injunction has the effect of suspending the

    operation of the Social Security Law. That law, regardless of any injunction, continues

    to be in force except only with respect to those who have private plans of their own in

    existence at the time of the effectivity of the law.

    2. It is not also correct to state that courts have no power to enjoin the enforcement of penal

    statutes even if they are alleged to be unconstitutional, for there are cases in this

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    3/77

     jurisdiction which hold that, under penal statutes affecting persons and property rights,

    where their constitutionality is doubtful, courts may grant preliminary injunction.

    3. While under the law the contributions to the system shall be collected in the same manner as

    taxes under the National Revenue Code, the same may be enjoined if special

    circumstances exist having relation to the existence of irreparable injury.

    4. Petitioner is also in error when it states that respondent corporations have not shown that the

    non-issuance of the injunction would cause them irreparable injury. This injury consists

    of the following:

    (a) To lift the injunction would mean to take away the availability of the funds of

    respondent corporation from their members who may borrow them in case of

    necessity;

    (b) To dissolve the injunction would be to take away respondents' funds which they

    may never be able to get back taking note of Section 31 of the Social Security

     Act, as amended, which says that no person shall be deemed to be vested with

    any property or right by virtue of the enactment of said Act;

    (c) If respondent corporations refuse to join the Social Security System, criminal

    prosecution would ensue against their officers and members.

     A careful evaluation of the foregoing arguments provide us with some observations.

     A law is presumed constitutional until otherwise declared by judicial interpretation. The task of suspending the

    operation of a law even if alleged to be unconstitutional is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an

    interference with the official acts not only of the duly elected representatives of the people but also of the highest

    magistrate of the land. This notwithstanding, respondent corporations resisted the integration of their private

    systems into the system established by the Social Security Act, and in order to avoid being recreant to their duty

    which may result in their prosecution, they filed the present petition seeking a judicial declaration on its

    constitutionality. But pending such action, they sought the restraining hand of the court on the plea that unless theenforcement of the law is restrained, they would suffer an irreparable injury.

     At this stage of the proceeding, it is not the task of the Court to pass on the question of constitutionality of the law.

    This concerns the merits of the case. We shall confine our inquiry into the propriety of the issuance of the writ

    which is the main issue raised in this petition. The foremost inquiry regarding this issue is the existence or non-

    existence of irreparable injury which seems to be the main basis of the issuance of the writ.

    Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no

    standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy (Crouch v Central Labor Council, 83

     ALR, 193). "An irreparable injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated

    and continuing kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and

    not by any accurate standard of measurement" (Phipps v Rogue River Valley Canal Co., 7 ALR, 741). An

    irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists of "a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property it

    affects, either physically or in the character in which it has been held and enjoined, or when the property has

    some peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof"

    (Dunker v. Field and Tub Club, 92 P., 502).

    Respondent corporations made a lengthy discourse on the matter of irreparable injury they may suffer if the

    injunction were not issued, but the array of figures they have laid out merely succeeded in proving that the

    damage, if any they may suffer, is susceptible of mathematical computation. It is not then irreparable. As already

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    4/77

    stated, this term has a definite meaning in law. It does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be

    caused but rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted. If full compensation can be obtained by way

    of damages, equity will not apply the remedy of injunction (28 Am. Jur., 244; 43 C.J.S., 427, 446).

    Neither can respondent corporations contend that their integration would mean the destruction of their existingprivate systems. The most that can happen would be a diminution of benefits in proportion to the reduction of the

    contributions to their private systems. But while they may suffer such reduction in benefits they also stand to

    benefit under the government system. Bear in mind that the integration does not mean the discontinuance of the

    private system for under the law three alternatives are open to respondents in effecting the integration. 1 In other

    words, respondents may continue with whatever private social systems they may have at present as a

    complement to the benefits afforded to them under the government system without prejudice to their integration

    into the government security system.

    It may be conceded that, if the injunction be lifted, the possible damages respondents may suffer are their

    contributions and those of their employers to the government security system. But restoration of said contributions

    had been assured by petitioner should the provision under consideration be declared unconstitutional and invalid.

    There can always be an appropriate arrangement to provide for refund in the event of such circumstance. Surely,the millions of pesos available to the Social Security System would be more than sufficient to compensate

    respondents for the contributions they have made.

    The same thing may not be said if the enforcement of the law is restrained, for then respondents would be more

    harassed and prejudiced in case the constitutionality of the law is upheld, since they will have to pay all the back

    contributions from September, 1957, including interests, up to the time the preliminary injunction is dissolved.

    Restoration would then be much more difficult in view of the contingencies that may arise with regard to the

    members of their private systems. There are, to be sure, more weighty reasons favoring the lifting of the injunction

    issued by respondent judge.

    PREMISES CONSIDERED, petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent judge is

    hereby lifted. No costs.

    Padilla, Reyes, J .B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ ., concur.

    Concepcion, C . J ., took no part.

    Footnotes

    1.(a) To abandon totally their private systems and be integrated into the government system; (b) to integrate

    into the government system so much of their contributions as required by law and continue with their

    systems with respect to the excess of their contributions; and (c) to be covered by the government

    system and continue in full force their private systems (Section 9, Republic Act 1161).

    ||| (SSS v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13555, [May 30, 1962], 115 PHIL 106-112)

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/34204?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=34204&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=L-13555&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    5/77

    FIRST DIVISION 

    [G.R. No. 167050. June 1, 2011.]

    SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner , vs . RIZAL POULTRY and LIVESTOCK

    ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION andBENJAMIN SAN DIEGO, respondents.

    DECISION 

    PEREZ, J p:

    This petition for certiorari  challenges the Decision 1 dated 20 September 2004 and Resolution 2 dated 9 February

    2005 of the Court of Appeals. The instant case stemmed from a petition filed by Alberto Angeles (Angeles) before

    the Social Security Commission (SSC) to compel respondents Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc. (RizalPoultry) or BSD Agro Industrial Development Corporation (BSD Agro) to remit to the Social Security System

    (SSS) all contributions due for and in his behalf. Respondents countered with a Motion to Dismiss 3 citing rulings

    of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Court of Appeals regarding the absence of employer-

    employee relationship between Angeles and the respondents.

     As a brief backgrounder, Angeles had earlier filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against BSD Agro and/or its

    owner, Benjamin San Diego (San Diego). The Labor Arbiter initially found that Angeles was an employee and that

    he was illegally dismissed. On appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision and held that no

    employer-employee relationship existed between Angeles and respondents. The ruling was anchored on the

    finding that the duties performed by Angeles, such as carpentry, plumbing, painting and electrical works, were not

    independent and integral steps in the essential operations of the company, which is engaged in the poultry

    business. 4  Angeles elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari. The appellate court

    affirmed the NLRC ruling and upheld the absence of employer-employee relationship. 5  Angeles moved for

    reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals. 6 No further appeal was undertaken, hence, an entry of

     judgment was made on 26 May 2001. 7 

     At any rate, the SSC did not take into consideration the decision of the NLRC. It denied respondents' motion to

    dismiss in an Order dated 19 February 2002. The SSC ratiocinated, thus:

    Decisions of the NLRC and other tribunals on the issue of existence of employer-employee

    relationship between parties are not binding on the Commission. At most, such finding has only

    a persuasive effect and does not constitute res judicata as a ground for dismissal of an action

    pending before Us. While it is true that the parties before the NLRC and in this case are the

    same, the issues and subject matter are entirely different. The labor case is for illegal dismissalwith demand for backwages and other monetary claims, while the present action is for

    remittance of unpaid SS[S] contributions. In other words, although in both suits the respondents

    invoke lack of employer-employee relationship, the same does not proceed from identical

    causes of action as one is for violation of the Labor Code while the instant case is for violation

    of the SS[S] Law. AcSCaI 

    Moreover, the respondents' arguments raising the absence of employer-employee relationship

    as a defense already traverse the very issues of the case at bar, i.e., the petitioner's fact of

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    6/77

    employment and entitlement to SS[S] coverage. Generally, factual matters should not weigh in

    resolving a motion to dismiss when it is based on the ground of failure to state a cause of

    action, but rather, merely the sufficiency or insufficienciy of the allegations in the complaint. . . .

    . In this respect, it must be observed that the petitioner very categorically set forth in his

    Petition, that he was employed by the respondent(s) from 1985 to 1997. 8 

     A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by respondents was likewise denied on 11 June 2002. The SSCreiterated that the principle of res judicata does not apply in this case because of the "absence of the

    indispensable element of 'identity of cause of action.'" 9 

    Unfazed, respondents sought recourse before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari. The Court of

     Appeals reversed the rulings of the SSC and held that there is a common issue between the cases before the

    SSC and in the NLRC; and it is whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between Angeles and

    respondents. Thus, the case falls squarely under the principle of res judicata, particularly under the rule on

    conclusiveness of judgment, as enunciated in Smith Bell and Co. v. Court of Appeals. 10 

    The Court of Appeals disposed, thus:

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated February 19, 2000 and the

    Resolution dated June 11, 2002 rendered by public respondent Social Security Commissoin in

    SSC Case No. 9-15225-01 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the respondent

    commission is ordered to DISMISS Social Security Commission Case No. 9-15225-01. 11 

     After the denial of their motion for reconsideration in a Resolution 12 dated 9 February 2005, petitioner filed the

    instant petition.

    For our consideration are the issues raised by petitioner, to wit:

    WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE NLRC AND THE COURT OF APPEALS,

    FINDING NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, CONSTITUTES RES JUDICATA AS

     A RULE ON CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT AS TO PRECLUDE THE RELITIGATION

    OF THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN A SUBSEQUENT CASEFILED BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

    WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS MAY ORDER OUTRIGHT THE

    DISMISSAL OF THE SSC CASE IN THE CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT. 13 

    SSC maintains that the prior judgment rendered by the NLRC and Court of Appeals, that no employer-employee

    relationship existed between the parties, does not have the force of res judicata by prior judgment or as a rule on

    the conclusiveness of judgment. It contends that the labor dispute and the SSC claim do not proceed from the

    same cause of action in that the action before SSC is for non-remittance of SSS contributions while the NLRC

    case was for illegal dismissal. The element of identity of parties is likewise unavailing in this case, according to

    SSC. Aside from SSS intervening, another employer, Rizal Poultry, was added as respondent in the case lodged

    before the SSC. There is no showing that BSD Agro and Rizal Poultry refer to the same juridical entity. Thus, the

    finding of absence of employer-employee relationship between BSD Agro and Angeles could not automatically

    extend to Rizal Poultry. Consequently, SSC assails the order of dismissal of the case lodged before it. cIDHSC 

    SSC also claims that the evidence submitted in the SSC case is different from that adduced in the NLRC case.

    Rather than ordering the dismissal of the SSC case, the Court of Appeals should have allowed SSC to resolve the

    case on its merits by applying the Social Security Act of 1997.

    Respondents assert that the findings of the NLRC are conclusive upon the SSC under the principle of res

     judicata and in line with the ruling in Smith Bell v. Court of Appeals. Respondents argue that there is substantially

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    7/77

    an identity of parties in the NLRC and SSC cases because Angeles himself, in his Petition, treated Rizal Poultry,

    BSD Agro and San Diego as one and the same entity.

    Respondents oppose the view proffered by SSC that the evidence to prove the existence of employer-employee

    relationship obtaining before the NLRC and SSS are entirely different. Respondents opine that the definition of an

    employee always proceeds from the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

    In essence, the main issue to be resolved is whether res judicata applies so as to preclude the SSC from

    resolving anew the existence of employer-employee relationship, which issue was previously determined in the

    NLRC case.

    Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the

    Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47 (c). 14 

    There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the

    second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this

    instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.  15 

    But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first

     judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as tomatters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment."

    Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination

    of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the

     judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim,

    demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. 16 

    Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the

    determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will

    be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.

    Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue. 17 

    The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decisionmust have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition

    of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action,

    identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of

    action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as

    between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res

     judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. 18  ATcEDS

    Verily, the principle of res judicata in the mode of "conclusiveness of judgment" applies in this case. The first

    element is present in this case. The NLRC ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It was a judicial

    affirmation through a decision duly promulgated and rendered final and executory when no appeal was

    undertaken within the reglementary period. The jurisdiction of the NLRC, which is a quasi-judicial body, was

    undisputed. Neither can the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the NLRC decision be the subject of adispute. The NLRC case was clearly decided on its merits; likewise on the merits was the affirmance of the NLRC

    by the Court of Appeals.

    With respect to the fourth element of identity of parties, we hold that there is substantial compliance.

    The parties in SSC and NLRC cases are not strictly identical. Rizal Poultry was impleaded as additional

    respondent in the SSC case. Jurisprudence however does not dictate absolute identity but only substantial

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    8/77

    identity. 19 There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the

    first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.  20 

    BSD Agro, Rizal Poultry and San Diego were litigating under one and the same entity both before the NLRC and

    the SSC. Although Rizal Poultry is not a party in the NLRC case, there are numerous indications that all the while,

    Rizal Poultry was also an employer of Angeles together with BSD Agro and San Diego. Angeles admitted before

    the NLRC that he was employed by BSD Agro and San Diego from 1985 until 1997.  21 He made a similar claimin his Petition before the SSC including as employer Rizal Poultry as respondent. 22  Angeles presented as

    evidence before the SSC his Identification Card and a Job Order to prove his employment in Rizal Poultry. He

    clarified in his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 23 filed before SSC that he failed to adduce these as evidence

    before the NLRC even if it would have proven his employment with BSD Agro. Most significantly, the three

    respondents, BSD Agro, Rizal Poultry and San Diego, litigated as one entity before the SSC. They were

    represented by one counsel and they submitted their pleadings as such one entity. Certainly, and at the very

    least, a community of interest exists among them. We therefore rule that there is substantial if not actual identity

    of parties both in the NLRC and SSC cases.

     As previously stated, an identity in the cause of action need not obtain in order to apply res judicata by

    "conclusiveness of judgment." An identity of issues would suffice.

    The remittance of SSS contributions is mandated by Section 22 (a) of the Social Security Act of 1997, viz.:

    SEC. 22.Remittance of Contributions. — (a) The contributions imposed in the preceding

    Section shall be remitted to the SSS within the first ten (10) days of each calendar month

    following the month for which they are applicable or within such time as the Commission may

    prescribe. Every employer required to deduct and to remit such contributions shall be liable for

    their payment and if any contribution is not paid to the SSS as herein prescribed, he shall pay

    besides the contribution a penalty thereon of three percent (3%) per month from the date the

    contribution falls due until paid. . . . .

    The mandatory coverage under the Social Security Act is premised on the existence of an employer-employee

    relationship. 24 This is evident from Section 9 (a) which provides:

    SEC. 9.Coverage. — (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all employees not

    over sixty (60) years of age and their employers: Provided, That in the case of domestic

    helpers, their monthly income shall not be less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) a month .

    . . .

    Section 8 (d) of the same law defines an employee as any person who performs services for an employer in

    which either or both mental or physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services, where

    there is an employer-employee relationship. The illegal dismissal case before the NLRC involved an inquiry into

    the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship. The very same inquiry is needed in the

    SSC case. And there was no indication therein that there is an essential conceptual difference between the

    definition of "employee" under the Labor Code and the Social Security Act.

    In the instant case, therefore, res judicata in the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. The judgment

    in the NLRC case pertaining to a finding of an absence of employer-employee relationship between Angeles and

    respondents is conclusive on the SSC case.

     A case in point is Smith Bell and Co. v. Court of Appeals 25 which, contrary to SSC, is apt and proper reference.

    Smith Bell availed of the services of private respondents to transport cargoes from the pier to the company's

    warehouse. Cases were filed against Smith Bell, one for illegal dismissal before the NLRC and the other one with

    the SSC, to direct Smith Bell to report all private respondents to the SSS for coverage. While the SSC case was

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    9/77

    pending before the Court of Appeals, Smith Bell presented the resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-

    44620, which affirmed the NLRC, Secretary of Labor, and Court of Appeals' finding that no employer-employee

    relationship existed between the parties, to constitute as bar to the SSC case. We granted the petition of Smith

    Bell and ordered the dismissal of the case. We held that the controversy is squarely covered by the principle

    of res judicata, particularly under the rule on "conclusiveness of judgment." Therefore, the judgment in G.R. No. L-

    44620 bars the SSC case, as the relief sought in the latter case is inextricably related to the ruling in G.R. No. L-

    44620 to the effect that private respondents are not employees of Smith Bell. IHDCcT 

    The fairly recent case of Co v. People, 26 likewise applies to the present case. An information was filed against

    Co by private respondent spouses who claim to be employees of the former for violation of the Social Security

     Act, specifically for non-remittance of SSS contributions. Earlier, respondent spouses had filed a labor case for

    illegal dismissal. The NLRC finally ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between her and

    respondent spouses. Co then filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the facts alleged in the

    Information did not constitute an offense because respondent spouses were not her employees. In support of her

    motion, she cited the NLRC ruling. This Court applied Smith Bell and declared that the final and executory NLRC

    decision to the effect that respondent spouses were not the employees of petitioner is a ruling binding in the case

    for violation of the Social Security Act. The Court further stated that the doctrine of "conclusiveness of judgment"

    also applies in criminal cases. 27 

     Applying the rule on res judicata by "conclusiveness of judgment" in conjunction with the aforecited cases, the

    Court of Appeals aptly ruled, thus:

    In SSC Case No. 9-15225-01, private respondent Angeles is seeking to compel herein

    petitioners to remit to the Social Security System (SSS) all contributions due for and in his

    behalf, whereas in NLRC NCR CA 018066-99 (NLRC RAB-IV-5-9028-97-RI) private

    respondent prayed for the declaration of his dismissal illegal. In SSC No. 9-15225-01, private

    respondent, in seeking to enforce his alleged right to compulsory SSS coverage, alleged that

    he had been an employee of petitioners; whereas to support his position in the labor case that

    he was illegally dismissed by petitioners BSD Agro and/or Benjamin San Diego, he asserted

    that there was an employer-employee relationship existing between him and petitioners at the

    time of his dismissal in 1997. Simply stated, the issue common to both cases is whether thereexisted an employer-employee relationship between private respondent and petitioners at the

    time of the acts complaint of were committed both in SSC Case No. 9-15225-01 and NLRC

    NCR CA 018066-99 (NLRC RAB-IV-5-9028-977-RI).

    The issue of employer-employee relationship was laid to rest in CA G.R. SP. No. 55383,

    through this Court's Decision dated October 27, 2000 which has long attained finality. Our

    affirmation of the NLRC decision of May 18, 1999 was an adjudication on the merits of the

    case.

    Considering the foregoing circumstances, the instant case falls squarely under the umbrage

    of res judicata, particularly, under the rule on conclusiveness of judgment. Following this rule,

    as enunciated in Smith Bell and Co. and Carriaga, Jr. cases, We hold that the relief sought inSSC Case No. 9-15225-01 is inextricably related to Our ruling in CA G.R. SP No. 55383 to the

    effect that private respondent was not an employee of petitioners. 28 

    The NLRC decision on the absence of employer-employee relationship being binding in the SSC case, we affirm

    the dismissal by Court of Appeals of the SSC case.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 September

    2004, as well as its Resolution dated 9 February 2005, is AFFIRMED. 

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54615?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=54615&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=167050&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0

  • 8/18/2019 Labor Standards SSS Cases

    10/77

    THIRD DIVISION 

    [G.R. NO. 172101. November 23, 2007.]

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

    and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioners, vs . ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE, respondent .

    D E C I S I O N 

    CHICO-NAZARIO, J p:

    Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari  under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil

    Procedure seeking to annul and set aside the Decision  1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP

    No. 87236, dated 5 January 2006 and 20 March 2006, respectively, which annulled and set aside the Orders of

    the Social Security Commission (SSC) in SSC Case No. 6-15507-03, dated 17 February 2004 3 and 16September 2004, 4 respectively, thereby dismissing the petition-complaint dated 12 June 2003 filed by herein

    petitioner Social Security System (SSS) against herein respondent.

    Herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines is represented by the SSC, a quasi-judicial body authorized by law to

    resolve disputes arising under  Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 8282. 5 Petitioner SSS is

    a government corporation created by virtue of  Republic Act No. 1161, as amended. On the other hand, herein

    respondent Asiapro Cooperative (Asiapro) is a multi-purpose cooperative created pursuant to Republic Act No.

    6938 6 and duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) on 23 November 1999 with

    Registration Certificate No. 0-623-2460. 7 

    The antecedents of this case are as follows:

    Respondent Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members. Under its by-laws, owners-members

    are of two categories, to wit: (1) regular member, who is entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership;

    and (2) associate member, who has no right to vote and be voted upon and shall be entitled only to such rights

    and privileges provided in its by-laws. 8 Its primary objectives are to provide savings and credit facilities and to

    develop other livelihood services for its owners-members. In the discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives,

    respondent cooperative entered into several Service Contracts 9 with Stanfilco — a division of DOLE Philippines,

    Inc. and a company based in Bukidnon. The owners-members do not receive compensation or wages from the

    respondent cooperative. Instead, they receive a share in the service surplus 10 which the respondent cooperative

    earns from different areas of trade it engages in, such as the income derived from the said Service Contracts with

    Stanfilco. The owners-members get their income from the service surplus generated by the quality and amount of

    services they rendered, which is determined by the Board of Directors of the respondent cooperative. DaTHAc 

    In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997, the owners-members of the respondent

    cooperative, who were assigned to Stanfilco requested the services of the latter to register them with petitioner

    SSS as self-employed and to remit their contributions as such. Also, to comply with Section 19-A of  Republic Act

    No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 8282, the SSS contributions of the said owners-members were equal

    to the share of both the employer and the employee.

    On 26 September 2002, however, petitioner SSS through its Vice-President for Mindanao Division, Atty. Eddie A.

    Jara, sent a letter  11 to the respondent cooperative, addressed to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and General

    https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/11215https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/11215https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/11215https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/3452https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/8467https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/8467https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/8467https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4407?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=4407&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=172101&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0https://cdasiaonline.com/