G.R. No. 169136 - Asiatic Development Corp. vs. Spouses Brogada

Asiatic Development Corporation (ADC) is the petitioner in the case.
Respondents are Spouses Wellington and Flordeliza Brogada, the parents of Fermin Brogada.
Fermin Brogada was allegedly employed by ADC from July 1994 until his death on November 14, 1996.
He worked as a survey aide under Engr. Bienvenido Orense, ADC’s geodetic engineer, while engaged on a project for one of ADC’s clients.

Following Fermin Brogada’s death, the respondents filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) to secure social security coverage and benefits.
The petition claimed unpaid social security contributions on account of Fermin’s employment with ADC.
The respondents asserted that, as his parents and secondary beneficiaries, they were entitled to the death benefit under the SSC rules and regulations.

ADC denied any liability by contesting the existence of an employer-employee relationship with Fermin Brogada.
It argued that Fermin was not directly employed by ADC but was instead working under the supervision of Engr. Orense, effectively making him Orense’s employee.
On this basis, ADC claimed it was not obliged to report Fermin for social security coverage.

The SSC rendered a judgment in favor of the respondents on September 24, 2003, declaring Fermin as an employee of ADC.
The resolution ordered ADC to pay:

PI 2,419.00 representing the unpaid social security contributions for Fermin’s period of employment (July 1994 to November 14, 1996).
P35,815.84 as a penalty of 3% per month for late payment computed as of October 31, 2003, with additional penalties accruing until payment was complete.
P32,000.00 as damages for failing to report Fermin for social security coverage prior to his death, pursuant to Section 24(a) of the Social Security Law.

The Social Security System was further directed to immediately disburse the lump sum death benefit to the respondents and to consider any liability under the Employer’s Compensation Law.

The Supreme Court case arose through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the May 31, 2005 decision and July 28, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the SSC resolution.
ADC persisted in its contention that there was no employer-employee relationship between it and Fermin, despite the SSC’s findings.
The petition was later denied, with the lower courts’ factual findings being upheld as supported by substantial evidence.

The case involved the critical determination of whether the issues at hand were matters of fact or questions of law, with the existence of an employer-employee relationship being seen as a question of fact.
The petition for review under Rule 45 could only raise questions of law, thereby barring ADC from re-litigating factual determinations already made by the SSC and the Court of Appeals.
The factual determinations by the SSC and CA—regarding Fermin’s status as an employee—were accorded respect and finality due to both being backed by substantial evidence.

Whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between Asiatic Development Corporation and Fermin Brogada.

Whether ADC’s contention that Fermin was merely the employee of Engr. Orense negated its obligation to report him for social security coverage.
Whether the factual determinations made by the Social Security Commission and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are immune from reexamination under Rule 45, given the substantial evidence supporting them.

Whether the questions raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45—which allows only questions of law to be raised—can suffice to challenge factual findings supported by substantial evidence.