Title
Miranda vs. Social Security Commission
Case
G.R. No. 238104
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2019
The Supreme Court upholds the Social Security Commission's jurisdiction and the finality of its resolution due to valid service of notices to the man's designated address, despite his claims of non-receipt.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 238104)

Facts:

  • Odelon Alvarez Miranda is the petitioner against the Social Security Commission (SSC) and the Social Security System (SSS), represented by Carina L. Catahan.
  • The case originated on July 20, 2006, when the SSS filed a petition for unpaid contributions and penalties against Onise Marketing (Onise) and Miranda, registered as SSC Case No. 7-16922-06.
  • The SSS claimed Onise and Miranda failed to remit SSS contributions from February 2002 to March 2006, totaling P113,896.26.
  • The SSS sought a Warrant for the Sheriff to levy and sell properties of Onise and Miranda to satisfy the liabilities.
  • On February 5, 2007, the SSC declared both parties in default for not filing an answer.
  • On April 24, 2013, the SSC held them liable for unpaid contributions of P16,659.00 and penalties of P44,137.58, totaling P60,796.58.
  • Despite the default, partial payments were made, indicating acknowledgment of liabilities.
  • A Writ of Execution was issued on July 15, 2015, followed by a Notice of Garnishment on February 26, 2016.
  • On June 21, 2016, Miranda filed a motion to annul the April 24, 2013 resolution and quash the Writ of Execution, claiming lack of jurisdiction due to non-receipt of summons.
  • The SSC denied the motion, asserting Miranda had received the summons and failed to update his address.
  • Miranda's motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading him to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA).
  • The CA partly granted his petition on November 20, 2017, annulling the orders denying the motion to quash but upholding the SSC's resolution on liability.
  • Miranda's subsequent motion for partial reconsideration was denied on March 12, 2018.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the SSC properly acquired jurisdiction over Miranda due to valid service of summons.
  • The execution of the SSC's April 24, 2013 resolution was deemed valid and final.
  • The CA's rulin...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court noted that the question of whether Miranda received the summons was a factual issue not typically resolved in a certiorari appeal.
  • The SSC provided substantial evidence, including proof of service and acknowledgment of partial payments, in...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.