Title
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-16704
Decision Date
Mar 17, 1962
SSC's Circular No. 22 clarified amended Social Security Act, mandating bonuses & overtime in SSS premium computations, upheld as valid administrative interpretation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16704)

Procedural Posture

The Commission rejected the objections, holding that Circular No. 22 was merely an administrative interpretation of the amended law—not a rule or regulation requiring Presidential approval or Official Gazette publication. Victorias Milling Company appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

Whether Circular No. 22 constitutes a “rule or regulation” under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 1161—thereby requiring the President’s approval and publication in the Official Gazette—or is simply an interpretative circular that becomes effective upon issuance.

Nature of Rules versus Interpretations

A rule or regulation “makes” new law with binding effect and may carry penal sanctions if violated; it requires observance of the promulgation procedure and is enforceable like a statute. An administrative interpretation, by contrast, is advisory, stating policy or opinion on how a pre-existing law should be construed, but lacking the force of law beyond the underlying statute.

Amendment of “Compensation” Definition

Original RA 1161 §8(f) defined “compensation” as all remuneration for employment, excluding (1) amounts over P500, (2) bonuses, allowances, overtime pay, and (3) discretionary payments. RA 1792 deleted the express exclusions for bonuses, allowances, and overtime pay, leaving only the P500 cap. The deletion necessitated clarification on whether items formerly exempted now constitute compensation.

Analysis of Circular No. 22

Circular No. 22 merely announced the Commission’s interpretation of the amended statutory definition of compensation. It did not introduce duties or details beyond those imposed by RA 1161 as amended by RA 1792. Thus, it neither created new legal obligations nor exceeded the scope of the enactment.

Applicability of Precedents

People v. Jolliffe (G.R. No. L-9553) recognizes that a regulation’s substance, not its form, determines its character; it does not establish that all circulars are rules. People v. Que Po Lay (50 O.G. 2850) involved penaltie

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.