Title
San Beda College vs. Social Security System
Case
G.R. No. L-27493
Decision Date
May 29, 1970
San Beda College contested SSS penalties for late premium remittances (1957-1962), citing an injunction. Supreme Court ruled in favor of San Beda, absolving liability due to the injunction and SSS's failure to claim damages earlier.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97898)

Background Facts

San Beda College is a duly organized domestic corporation and a recognized educational institution in the Philippines. On August 30, 1957, the lay faculty club of San Beda College and another faculty club sought declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila to assess the applicability of the Social Security Act concerning their benefits plan. The court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the SSS from requiring the integration of San Beda's private benefits plan into the Social Security System.

Legal Proceedings

The SSS filed for certiorari against the injunction, which was later dissolved in a judgment rendered on May 30, 1962. Subsequently, San Beda College paid the outstanding premiums amounting to P121,111.07 in installments. However, the SSC demanded payment of penalties for late contributions, which San Beda College contested, leading to SSC Case No. 475 and the present petition for review.

Applicable Law

The relevant legislation includes Section 22 of Republic Act 1161, which mandates the collection and remittance of contributions, imposing a penalty of three percent per month on delayed payments. Furthermore, Section 5 of the Social Security Act lays out the Commission's authority regarding claims and penalties.

Jurisdiction and Penalties

San Beda College contested the SSC's jurisdiction and the constitutionality of the penalties imposed, arguing it had not been liable for delayed payments due to the injunction. The court, acknowledging the previous restraining order, found that the college could not be penalized for delays that were outside its control. The SSS's argument that the obligation to remit contributions continued despite the injunction was rejected because it failed to acknowledge the necessity of mutual consent for any payment.

Court's Rationale

The court held that the penalties were unjustified due to the injunction that prevented SSS from enforcing its collection. It clarified that San Beda's non-remittance of contributions was not due to negligence but rather the result of legal constraints. The court further indicated that any penalties resulting from the injunction should have been sought from the bond associated with the court's order, which the SSS neg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.