Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17625)
Facts:
Insular Lumber Company v. Social Security System, G.R. No. L-17625. January 31, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Insular Lumber Company became a compulsory member of the Social Security System in August 1957. Its employee, Pedro Primavera, a daily-wage worker and SSS member, was on sick leave with pay until September 1957, after which he exhausted sickness benefits and was on leave without pay. Primavera later died.
On October 14, 1957 petitioner wrote the System that Primavera had not paid the premium for September 1957 while on sick leave without pay and requested advice. The System's Deputy Administrator, Higinio E. Francisco, replied that the company acted correctly in not paying the employer's 3-1/2% contribution for September and that contributions would resume when Primavera returned to work. A later letter (November 3, 1958) from Deputy Administrator Francisco, clarifying Circular No. 21, stated that for daily-rate or piecework employees premiums are "based on salary actually earned by the employee."
Notwithstanding those communications, the System's Adjudication Division later presented Bill No. 293 to petitioner demanding P3.48 as the employer's 3-1/2% premium for Primavera for September 1957, computed on an average monthly salary of P99.583. Petitioner objected, arguing that Primavera had no earnings that month and that Circular No. 21 could not be applied retroactively. The System replied—citing Resolution No. 139, series of 1958—that the employer's obligation to remit the 3-1/2% continues so long as the employer-employee relationship is not terminated.
Petitioner filed a formal petition on January 31, 1959 with the Social Security Commission seeking annulment of the System's ruling as to the P3.48 demand. The Social Security Commission, after hearing, denied the petition. Petitioner appealed from that decision to the Supreme Court.
The Court considered prior rulings, notably Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-15163 (prom. Feb. 28, 1962), and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is an employer liable to pay the employer's 3-1/2% Social Security contribution for a month in which a covered employee was on sick leave without pay?
- Does payment of compensation to the employee (i.e., actual receipt of wages) constitute a prerequisite to the employer's liability to remit Social Security contributions f...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)