Title
San Teodoro Development Enterprises, Inc. vs. Social Security System
Case
G.R. No. L-17662
Decision Date
May 30, 1963
A dissolved partnership's continuity as a corporation subjected it to compulsory SSS coverage, as the new entity retained the same operations, employees, and control.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17662)

Background Facts

The underlying issue arose on January 8, 1959, when the SSS informed the San Teodoro Sawmill Co., Inc. that they were required to comply with the compulsory coverage of the Social Security Law, effective as of August 1, 1957, for the company and September 1, 1957, for its employees. The company, which transformed from Chua Lam & Company, Ltd. into San Teodoro Development Enterprises, Inc. on January 2, 1957, contended its exemption from this coverage, arguing that it only became effective from January 3, 1959.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings

The SSS Commission declared that the San Teodoro Development Enterprises, Inc. was a mere continuation of Chua Lam & Company, Ltd., and thus liable for coverage retroactively from August 1, 1957. Following the denial of the company’s motion for reconsideration, they sought judicial review, challenging the Commission's resolution.

Corporate Structure and Transition

Review of corporate and partnership documents revealed that the partnership, established on June 23, 1951, entered into a contract of dissolution by December 15, 1956, culminating in formal dissolution on July 19, 1957. A new corporation, the San Teodoro Sawmill Co., Inc., was registered on January 2, 1957, with many former partners as its incorporators, indicating the continuity of interests and personnel from the partnership to the newly formed corporation.

Essential Findings by the Social Security Commission

The Commission concluded that the transition from the partnership to the corporation was executed to maintain the business operations without interruption and to ensure that obligations were not evaded. The close connections between the former partners and the new entity, including similar personnel and the retention of the original business name (with the addition of “Inc.”), highlighted this intent to effectively continue the business.

Arguments Against Distinct Legal Personality

The petitioner’s argument relied on the premise of having a distinct legal personality separate from the defunct partnership, asserting that it was organized after the partnership's dissolution. However, the Court noted that the critical assessment of corporate personality cannot undermine regulatory obligations. The historical context of the partnership’s dissolution and the formation of the corporation was scrutinized, revealing a deliberate plan that contradicted the assertion of a true legal break between the two entities.

Interpretation of Legal Constructs

The Court addressed the disti

...continue reading

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