Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 169757 2011-11-23	CESAR C. LIRIO v. WILMER D. GENOVIA PERALTA, J.
The said documents showed that petitioner hired respondent as an employee and he was paid monthly wages of P7,000.00. Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss as respondent stated that he was verbally dismissed by petitioner, and respondent, thereafter, filed an action for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power.[33] It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power.[34] Nevertheless, petitioner stated in his Position Paper that it was agreed that he would help and teach respondent how to use the studio equipment. In such case, petitioner certainly had the power to check on the progress and work of respondent.
	GR No. 176484 2008-11-25	CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER v. NLRC CARPIO MORALES, J.
More importantly, petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment status of respondents, namely, the identification cards it issued them, the payslips[33] and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees, and the classification as "salary" of their remuneration. Moreover, it enrolled respondents in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. It bears noting at this juncture that mandatory coverage under the SSS Law[34] is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship,[35] except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed. It would be preposterous for an employer to report certain persons as employees and pay their SSS premiums as well as their wages if they are not its employees.[36]
	GR No. 165482 2008-07-23	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FAR S. ALBA TINGA, J,
At the outset, the question of whether Far Alba had been Lamboso's employer, under the Social Security Act of 1954, prior to 1970 is a question of fact. And while generally, factual issues are not within the province of the Supreme Court, the rule is not without exception. Where there are conflicting and contradictory findings of fact, this Court will not hesitate to scrutinize the records to determine the facts for itself.[20]
	GR No. 172101 2007-11-23	REPUBLIC v. ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8282 provides: SEC. 5. Settlement of Disputes. (a) Any dispute arising under this Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission, x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revised Rules of Procedure states: Section 1. Jurisdiction. Any dispute arising under the Social Security Act with respect to coverage, entitlement of benefits, collection and settlement of contributions and penalties thereon, or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission after the SSS through its President, Manager or Officer-in-charge of the Department/Branch/Representative Office concerned had first taken action thereon in writing. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear then from the aforesaid provisions that any issue regarding the compulsory coverage of the SSS is well within the exclusive domain of the petitioner SSC. It is important to note, though, that the mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship[17] except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed.
	GR NO. 149138 2006-02-28	TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION v. BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Normally, this Court is not a trier of facts.[3] However, since the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are conflicting,[4] we shall discuss our factual findings and our determination of the main issue.
	GR NO. 149090 2005-02-11	BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII v. TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[3] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[4] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[5] absurd or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[6] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[7] (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues; (7) the Court of Appeals' findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[8] (8) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[9]