This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 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] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Decisive of the issue in this case is the ruling of this Court in Smith Bell & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[15] In that case, private respondents filed a complaint against Smith Bell & Co. with the SSC seeking to compel the corporation to report them for SSS coverage and remit in their behalf SSS contributions. Private respondents alleged that they were employees of the corporation. The SSS intervened. In a Decision dated December 17, 1975, the SSC found private respondents to be employees of Smith Bell & Co. The fallo of the decision reads:PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds and so hold respondent Smith Bell and Company, Inc. to be the employer of herein petitioners. Respondent is hereby directed to report all the petitioners to the SSS for coverage and to pay all SSS contributions due in their behalf, covering their respective periods of employment. | |||||