563 Phil. 979
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul and set aside the Decision
[1] and Resolution
[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87236, dated 5 January 2006
and 20 March 2006, respectively, which annulled and set aside the
Orders of the Social Security Commission (SSC) in SSC Case No.
6-15507-03, dated 17 February 2004
[3] and 16 September 2004,
[4]
respectively, thereby dismissing the petition-complaint dated 12 June
2003 filed by herein petitioner Social Security System (SSS) against
herein respondent.
Herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines is represented by the
SSC, a quasi-judicial body authorized by law to resolve disputes
arising under Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No.
8282.
[5]
Petitioner SSS is a government corporation created by virtue of
Republic Act No. 1161, as amended. On the other hand, herein
respondent Asiapro Cooperative (Asiapro) is a multi-purpose cooperative
created pursuant to Republic Act No. 6938
[6]
and duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) on
23 November 1999 with Registration Certificate No. 0-623-2460.
[7]
The antecedents of this case are as follows:
Respondent Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members.
Under its by-laws, owners-members are of two categories, to wit: (1)
regular member, who is entitled to all the rights and privileges of
membership; and (2) associate member, who has no right to vote and be
voted upon and shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges
provided in its by-laws.
[8]
Its primary objectives are to provide savings and credit facilities and
to develop other livelihood services for its owners-members. In the
discharge of the aforesaid primary objectives, respondent cooperative
entered into several Service Contracts
[9]
with Stanfilco - a division of DOLE Philippines, Inc. and a company
based in Bukidnon. The owners-members do not receive compensation or
wages from the respondent cooperative. Instead, they receive a share
in the service surplus
[10]
which the respondent cooperative earns from different areas of trade it
engages in, such as the income derived from the said Service Contracts
with Stanfilco. The owners-members get their income from the service
surplus generated by the quality and amount of services they rendered,
which is determined by the Board of Directors of the respondent
cooperative.
In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997,
the owners-members of the respondent cooperative, who were assigned to
Stanfilco requested the services of the latter to register them with
petitioner SSS as self-employed and to remit their contributions as
such. Also, to comply with Section 19-A of Republic Act No. 1161, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8282, the SSS contributions of the said
owners-members were equal to the share of both the employer and the
employee.
On 26 September 2002, however, petitioner SSS through its
Vice-President for Mindanao Division, Atty. Eddie A. Jara, sent a letter
[11]
to the respondent cooperative, addressed to its Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) and General Manager Leo G. Parma, informing the latter that based
on the Service Contracts it executed with Stanfilco, respondent
cooperative is actually a manpower contractor supplying employees to
Stanfilco and for that reason, it is an employer of its owners-members
working with Stanfilco. Thus, respondent cooperative should register
itself with petitioner SSS as an employer and make the corresponding
report and remittance of premium contributions in accordance with the
Social Security Law of 1997. On 9 October 2002,
[12]
respondent cooperative, through its counsel, sent a reply to petitioner
SSS’s letter asserting that it is not an employer because its
owners-members are the cooperative itself; hence, it cannot be its own
employer. Again, on 21 October 2002,
[13]
petitioner SSS sent a letter to respondent cooperative ordering the
latter to register as an employer and report its owners-members as
employees for compulsory coverage with the petitioner SSS. Respondent
cooperative continuously ignored the demand of petitioner SSS.
Accordingly, petitioner SSS, on 12 June 2003, filed a Petition
[14]
before petitioner SSC against the respondent cooperative and Stanfilco
praying that the respondent cooperative or, in the alternative,
Stanfilco be directed to register as an employer and to report
respondent cooperative’s owners-members as covered employees under the
compulsory coverage of SSS and to remit the necessary contributions in
accordance with the Social Security Law of 1997. The same was docketed
as SSC Case No. 6-15507-03. Respondent cooperative filed its Answer
with Motion to Dismiss alleging that no employer-employee relationship
exists between it and its owners-members, thus, petitioner SSC has no
jurisdiction over the respondent cooperative. Stanfilco, on the other
hand, filed an Answer with Cross-claim against the respondent
cooperative.
On 17 February 2004, petitioner SSC issued an Order denying the Motion
to Dismiss filed by the respondent cooperative. The respondent
cooperative moved for the reconsideration of the said Order, but it was
likewise denied in another Order issued by the SSC dated 16 September
2004.
Intending to appeal the above Orders, respondent cooperative filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review before the
Court of Appeals. Subsequently, respondent cooperative filed a
Manifestation stating that it was no longer filing a Petition for
Review. In its place, respondent cooperative filed a Petition for
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87236, with the following assignment of errors:
- The Orders dated 17 February 2004 and 16
September 2004 of [herein petitioner] SSC were issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to a (sic) lack or excess of jurisdiction in
that:
- [Petitioner] SSC arbitrarily proceeded with the case as if it has jurisdiction over the petition a quo,
considering that it failed to first resolve the issue of the existence
of an employer-employee relationship between [respondent] cooperative
and its owners-members.
- While indeed, the [petitioner] SSC has jurisdiction over all
disputes arising under the SSS Law with respect to coverage, benefits,
contributions, and related matters, it is respectfully submitted that
[petitioner] SSC may only assume jurisdiction in cases where there is
no dispute as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
- Contrary to the holding of the [petitioner] SSC, the legal issue of
employer-employee relationship raised in [respondent’s] Motion to
Dismiss can be preliminarily resolved through summary hearings prior to
the hearing on the merits. However, any inquiry beyond a preliminary
determination, as what [petitioner SSC] wants to accomplish, would be
to encroach on the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Commission [NLRC], which is the more competent body clothed with power
to resolve issues relating to the existence of an employment
relationship.
- At any rate, the [petitioner] SSC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition a quo.
- [Respondent] is not an employer within the
contemplation of the Labor Law but is a multi-purpose cooperative
created pursuant to Republic Act No. 6938 and composed of
owners-members, not employees.
- The rights and obligations of the owners-members of [respondent]
cooperative are derived from their Membership Agreements, the
Cooperatives By-Laws, and Republic Act No. 6938, and not from any
contract of employment or from the Labor Laws. Moreover, said
owners-members enjoy rights that are not consistent with being mere
employees of a company, such as the right to participate and vote in
decision-making for the cooperative.
- As found by the Bureau of Internal Revenue [BIR], the
owners-members of [respondent] cooperative are not paid any
compensation income.[15] (Emphasis supplied.)
On 5 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting
the petition filed by the respondent cooperative. The decretal portion
of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated [17 February 2004] and [16 September 2004], are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the petition-complaint dated [12 June 2003] of [herein petitioner] Social Security System.[16]
Aggrieved
by the aforesaid Decision, petitioner SSS moved for a reconsideration,
but it was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated 20
March 2006.
Hence, this Petition.
In its Memorandum, petitioners raise the issue of
whether
or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the SSC has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and it has a valid basis in
denying respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. The said issue is supported by the following arguments:
- The [petitioner SSC] has jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed before it by the [petitioner SSS] under R.A. No. 8282.
- Respondent [cooperative] is estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of petitioner SSC after invoking its jurisdiction by
filing an [A]nswer with [M]otion to [D]ismiss before it.
- The [petitioner SSC] did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent [cooperative’s] [M]otion to [D]ismiss.
- The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact where presentation of evidence is necessary.
- There is an employer-employee relationship between [respondent cooperative] and its [owners-members].
Petitioners claim that SSC has jurisdiction over the petition-complaint
filed before it by petitioner SSS as it involved an issue of whether or
not a worker is entitled to compulsory coverage under the SSS Law.
Petitioners avow that Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8282, expressly confers upon petitioner SSC the power
to settle disputes on compulsory coverage, benefits, contributions and
penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto. Likewise,
Section 9 of the same law clearly provides that SSS coverage is
compulsory upon all employees. Thus, when petitioner SSS filed a
petition-complaint against the respondent cooperative and Stanfilco
before the petitioner SSC for the compulsory coverage of respondent
cooperative’s owners-members as well as for collection of unpaid SSS
contributions, it was very obvious that the subject matter of the
aforesaid petition-complaint was within the expertise and jurisdiction
of the SSC.
Petitioners similarly assert that
granting arguendo that
there is a prior need to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative and
its owners-members, said issue does not preclude petitioner SSC from
taking cognizance of the aforesaid petition-complaint. Considering
that the principal relief sought in the said petition-complaint has to
be resolved by reference to the Social Security Law and not to the
Labor Code or other labor relations statutes, therefore, jurisdiction
over the same solely belongs to petitioner SSC.
Petitioners further claim that the denial of the respondent
cooperative’s Motion to Dismiss grounded on the alleged lack of
employer-employee relationship does not constitute grave abuse of
discretion on the part of petitioner SSC because the latter has the
authority and power to deny the same. Moreover, the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is a question of fact where presentation
of evidence is necessary. Petitioners also maintain that the
respondent cooperative is already estopped from assailing the
jurisdiction of the petitioner SSC because it has already filed its
Answer before it, thus, respondent cooperative has already submitted
itself to the jurisdiction of the petitioner SSC.
Finally, petitioners contend that there is an employer-employee
relationship between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members. The respondent cooperative is the employer of its
owners-members considering that it undertook to provide services to
Stanfilco, the performance of which is under the full and sole control
of the respondent cooperative.
On the other hand, respondent cooperative alleges that its
owners-members own the cooperative, thus, no employer-employee
relationship can arise between them. The persons of the employer and
the employee are merged in the owners-members themselves. Likewise,
respondent cooperative’s owners-members even requested the respondent
cooperative to register them with the petitioner SSS as self-employed
individuals. Hence, petitioner SSC has no jurisdiction over the
petition-complaint filed before it by petitioner SSS.
Respondent cooperative further avers that the Court of Appeals
correctly ruled that petitioner SSC acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it assumed jurisdiction over the petition-complaint
without determining first if there was an employer-employee
relationship between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members. Respondent cooperative claims that the question of
whether an employer-employee relationship exists between it and its
owners-members is a legal and not a factual issue as the facts are
undisputed and need only to be interpreted by the applicable law and
jurisprudence.
Lastly, respondent cooperative asserts that it cannot be considered
estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of petitioner SSC simply
because it filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss, especially where the
issue of jurisdiction is raised at the very first instance and where
the only relief being sought is the dismissal of the petition-complaint
for lack of jurisdiction.
From the foregoing arguments of the parties, the issues may be summarized into:
- Whether the
petitioner SSC has jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed
before it by petitioner SSS against the respondent cooperative.
- Whether the respondent cooperative is estopped from assailing the
jurisdiction of petitioner SSC since it had already filed an Answer
with Motion to Dismiss before the said body.
Petitioner SSC’s jurisdiction is clearly stated in Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 8282 as well as in Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS
Revised Rules of Procedure.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8282 provides:
SEC. 5. Settlement of Disputes. – (a) Any dispute arising under this Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission, x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revised Rules of Procedure states:
Section 1. Jurisdiction. – Any dispute arising under the Social Security Act with respect to coverage, entitlement of benefits, collection and settlement of contributions and penalties thereon, or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission
after the SSS through its President, Manager or Officer-in-charge of
the Department/Branch/Representative Office concerned had first taken
action thereon in writing. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear then from the aforesaid provisions that any issue regarding
the compulsory coverage of the SSS is well within the exclusive domain
of the petitioner SSC. It is important to note, though, that the
mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship
[17] except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed.
It is axiomatic that the allegations
in the complaint, not the defenses set up in the Answer or in the
Motion to Dismiss, determine which court has jurisdiction over an
action; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely upon the defendant.[18]
Moreover, it is well-settled that once jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the full termination of the case.
[19] The said principle may be applied even to quasi-judicial bodies.
In this case, the petition-complaint filed by the petitioner SSS before
the petitioner SSC against the respondent cooperative and Stanfilco
alleges that the owners-members of the respondent cooperative are
subject to the compulsory coverage of the SSS because they are
employees of the respondent cooperative. Consequently, the respondent
cooperative being the employer of its owners-members must register as
employer and report its owners-members as covered members of the SSS
and remit the necessary premium contributions in accordance with the
Social Security Law of 1997. Accordingly, based on the aforesaid
allegations in the petition-complaint filed before the petitioner SSC,
the case clearly falls within its jurisdiction. Although the Answer
with Motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent cooperative challenged
the jurisdiction of the petitioner SSC on the alleged lack of
employer-employee relationship between itself and its owners-members,
the same is not enough to deprive the petitioner SSC of its
jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed before it. Thus, the
petitioner SSC cannot be faulted for initially assuming jurisdiction
over the petition-complaint of the petitioner SSS.
Nonetheless, since the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members was put in
issue and considering that the compulsory coverage of the SSS Law is
predicated on the existence of such relationship, it behooves the
petitioner SSC to determine if there is really an employer-employee
relationship that exists between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members.
The question on the existence of an employer-employee relationship is
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). Article 217 of the Labor Code enumerating the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC provides that:
ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION. - (a) x x x.
x x x x
- Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (
P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.[20]
Although the aforesaid provision speaks merely of claims for Social
Security, it would necessarily include issues on the coverage thereof,
because claims are undeniably rooted in the coverage by the system.
Hence, the question on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship
for the purpose of determining the coverage of the Social Security System
is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and falls
within the jurisdiction of the SSC which is primarily charged with the
duty of settling disputes arising under the Social Security Law of 1997.
On the basis thereof, considering that the petition-complaint of the
petitioner SSS involved the issue of compulsory coverage of the
owners-members of the respondent cooperative, this Court agrees with
the petitioner SSC when it declared in its Order dated 17 February 2004
that as an incident to the issue of compulsory coverage, it may inquire
into the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship
without need of waiting for a prior pronouncement or submitting the
issue to the NLRC for prior determination. Since both the petitioner
SSC and the NLRC are independent bodies and their jurisdiction are
well-defined by the separate statutes creating them, petitioner SSC has
the authority to inquire into the relationship existing between the
worker and the person or entity to whom he renders service to determine
if the employment, indeed, is one that is excepted by the Social
Security Law of 1997 from compulsory coverage.
[21]
Even before the petitioner SSC could make a determination of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, however, the respondent
cooperative already elevated the Order of the petitioner SSC, denying
its Motion to Dismiss, to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for
Certiorari. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner SSC became a party to the said Petition for
Certiorari pursuant to Section 5(b)
[22]
of Republic Act No. 8282. The appellate court ruled in favor of the
respondent cooperative by declaring that the petitioner SSC has no
jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed before it because there
was no employer-employee relationship between the respondent
cooperative and its owners-members. Resultantly, the petitioners SSS
and SSC, representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a Petition
for Review before this Court.
Although as a rule, in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of
review, the Court is not a trier of facts and the findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court,
[23] said rule is not without exceptions. There are several recognized exceptions
[24]
in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court. One of these
exceptions finds application in this present case which is, when the
findings of fact are conflicting. There are, indeed, conflicting
findings espoused by the petitioner SSC and the appellate court
relative to the existence of employer-employee relationship between the
respondent cooperative and its owners-members, which necessitates a
departure from the oft-repeated rule that factual issues may not be the
subject of appeals to this Court.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the
following elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of
the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever means; (3) the power
of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with
the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.
[25] The
most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s
conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as
to the means and methods to accomplish.
[26]
The power of control refers to the existence of the power and not
necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential for
the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the
employee; it is enough that the employer has the right to wield that
power.
[27] All the aforesaid elements are present in this case.
First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the
exclusive
discretion in the selection and engagement of the owners-members as
well as its team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco.
[28] Second.
Wages are defined as “remuneration or earnings, however designated,
capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or
ascertained, on a time, task, piece or commission basis, or other
method of calculating the same, which is
payable
by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of
employment for work done or to be done, or for service rendered or to
be rendered.”
[29] In this case, the
weekly
stipends or the so-called shares in the service surplus given by the
respondent cooperative to its owners-members were in reality wages, as
the same were equivalent to an amount not lower than that prescribed by
existing labor laws, rules and regulations, including the wage order
applicable to the area and industry; or the same shall not be lower
than the prevailing rates of wages.
[30]
It cannot be doubted then that those stipends or shares in the service
surplus are indeed wages, because these are given to the owners-members
as compensation in rendering services to respondent cooperative’s
client, Stanfilco.
Third. It is also stated in the above-mentioned Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the
power to investigate, discipline and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who were rendering services at Stanfilco.
[31] Fourth.
As earlier opined, of the four elements of the employer-employee
relationship, the “control test” is the most important. In the case at
bar, it is the
respondent cooperative
which has the sole control over the manner and means of performing the
services under the Service Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the
means and methods of work.
[32]
Also, the respondent cooperative is solely and entirely responsible for
its owners-members, team leaders and other representatives at Stanfilco.
[33]
All these clearly prove that, indeed, there is an employer-employee
relationship between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members.
It is true that the Service Contracts executed between the respondent
cooperative and Stanfilco expressly provide that there shall be no
employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative and
its owners-members.
[34] This Court, however, cannot give the said provision force and effect.
As previously pointed out by this Court, an employee-employer
relationship actually exists between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members. The four elements in the four-fold test for the
existence of an employment relationship have been complied with. The
respondent cooperative must not be allowed to deny its employment
relationship with its owners-members by invoking the questionable
Service Contracts provision, when in actuality, it does exist.
The
existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
expressly repudiating it in a contract, when the terms and surrounding
circumstances show otherwise. The employment status of a person is
defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should
be.[35]
It is settled that the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they want, and their
agreement would have the force of law between them. However,
the agreed terms and conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, customs, public policy or public order.
[36]
The Service Contract provision in question must be struck down for
being contrary to law and public policy since it is apparently being
used by the respondent cooperative merely to circumvent the compulsory
coverage of its employees, who are also its owners-members, by the
Social Security Law.
This Court is not unmindful of the pronouncement it made in
Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja[37] wherein it held that:
A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from
an ordinary business concern, being run either by persons,
partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones
who run and operate the business while the others are its employees x x
x.
An employee therefore of such a
cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the
right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain
with himself or his co-owners. In the opinion of August 14,
1981 of the Solicitor General he correctly opined that employees of
cooperatives who are themselves members of the cooperative have no
right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative.
However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are
not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled
to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective
bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the
Constitution and existing laws of the country.
The situation in the aforesaid case is very much
different from the present case. The declaration made by the Court in
the aforesaid case was made in the context of whether an employee who
is also an owner-member of a cooperative can exercise the right to
bargain collectively with the employer who is the cooperative wherein
he is an owner-member. Obviously, an owner-member cannot bargain
collectively with the cooperative of which he is also the owner because
an owner cannot bargain with himself. In the instant case, there is no
issue regarding an owner-member’s right to bargain collectively with
the cooperative. The question involved here is whether an
employer-employee relationship can exist between the cooperative and an
owner-member. In fact, a closer look at
Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. will show that it actually recognized that an owner-member of a cooperative can be its own employee.
It bears stressing, too, that a cooperative acquires juridical
personality upon its registration with the Cooperative Development
Authority.
[38]
It has its Board of Directors, which directs and supervises its
business; meaning, its Board of Directors is the one in charge in the
conduct and management of its affairs.
[39]
With that, a cooperative can be likened to a corporation with a
personality separate and distinct from its owners-members.
Consequently, an owner-member of a cooperative can be an employee of
the latter and an employer-employee relationship can exist between them.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent cooperative
had registered itself with the Cooperative Development Authority, as
evidenced by its Certificate of Registration No. 0-623-2460.
[40] In its by-laws,
[41]
its Board of Directors directs, controls, and supervises the business
and manages the property of the respondent cooperative. Clearly then,
the management of the affairs of the respondent cooperative is vested
in its Board of Directors and not in its owners-members as a whole.
Therefore, it is completely logical that the respondent cooperative, as
a juridical person represented by its Board of Directors, can enter
into an employment with its owners-members.
In sum, having declared that there is an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent cooperative and its owners-member, we conclude
that the petitioner SSC has jurisdiction over the petition-complaint
filed before it by the petitioner SSS. This being our conclusion, it
is no longer necessary to discuss the issue of whether the respondent
cooperative was estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
petitioner SSC when it filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87236, dated 5
January 2006 and 20 March 2006, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Orders of the petitioner SSC dated 17 February 2004 and
16 September 2004 are hereby REINSTATED. The petitioner SSC is hereby
DIRECTED to continue hearing the petition-complaint filed before it by
the petitioner SSS as regards the compulsory coverage of the respondent
cooperative and its owners-members. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Azcuna, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring;
rollo, pp. 63-74.
[2] Id. at 61-62.
[3] Penned by Commissioner Sergio R. Ortiz-Luis, Jr.; id. at 116-119.
[4] Id. at 146-149.
[5] Otherwise known as “Social Security Act of 1997,” which was approved on 1 May 1997.
[6] Otherwise known as “Cooperative Code of the Philippines,” which was enacted on 10 March 1990.
[7] CA
rollo, p. 63.
[8] Section 2, Asiapro Cooperative Amended By-Laws, CA
rollo, p. 68.
[9] Id. at 126-130, 444-449.
[10] It represents the amount
given to respondent cooperative’s owners-members for rendering services
to the client of respondent cooperative, like Stanfilco. Such amount
shall not be lower than the prevailing rates of wages.
[11] Rollo, pp. 75-76.
[12] Id. at 82-86.
[13] Id. at 87-88.
[14] Id. at 89-97.
[15] Rollo, pp. 66-68.
[16] Id. at 74.
[17] Social Security System v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 132, 141 (2000).
[18] Abacus Securities Corporation v. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, 27 February 2006, 483 SCRA 315, 339.
[19] Philrock, Inc. v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, 412 Phil. 236, 246 (2001).
[20] Article 217(a)(6) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
[21] Rollo, p. 117.
[22] SEC. 5.
Settlement of Disputes. – (a) x x x.
(b) x x x. The Commission shall be deemed to be a party to any
judicial action involving any such decision, and may be represented by
an attorney employed by the Commission, by the Solicitor General or any
public prosecutor.
[23] Almendrala v. Ngo, G.R. No. 142408, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 311, 322.
[24] Recognized exceptions to
this rule are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave
abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension
of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in
making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellee and the appellant; (7) when the findings are contrary to the
trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth
in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs
are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which,
if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion (
Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 400 Phil. 1349, 1356 (2000);
Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commissions, 390 Phil. 1228, 1243 (2000);
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phils.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999);
Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 (1998);
Almendrala v. Ngo, G.R. No. 142408, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 311, 322.)
[25] Jo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 381 Phil. 428, 435 (2000).
[26] Chavez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 146530, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 478, 490.
[27] Jo v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 25.
[28] 7.
SELECTION, ENGAGEMENT, DISCHARGE.
The Cooperative shall have the exclusive discretion in the acceptance,
engagement, investigation and discipline and removal of its
owner-members and team leaders. (Service Contract, CA
rollo, p. 458).
[29] ART. 97(f) of the Labor Code.
[30] 4.
COOPERATIVE’S RESPONSIBILITIES. The Cooperative shall have the following responsibilities:
x x x x.
4.3. The Cooperative shall pay the share of the service surplus due to
its owner-members assigned to the Client x x x. However, the amount of
the share of the service surplus of the owner-members x x x shall be in
an amount not lower than existing labor laws, rules and regulations,
including the wage order applicable to the area and industry. x x x.
(CA
rollo, pp. 457-458).
[31] Id.
[32] 1.
SCOPE OF SERVICE. x x x.
x x x. The Cooperative shall have sole control over the manner and
means of performing the subject services under this Contract and shall
complete the services in accordance with its own means and methods of
work, in keeping with the Client’s standards. (Id. at 456).
[33] 3.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
x x x. The Cooperative shall be solely and entirely responsible for
its owner-members, team leaders and other representatives. (Id. at
457).
[34] 3.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
It is hereby agreed that there shall be no employer-employee
relationship between the Cooperative and its owners-members x x x.
(Id).
[35] Chavez v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 26 at 493;
Lopez v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, G.R. No. 154472, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 428, 445-446.
[36] Art. 1306, Civil Code of the Philippines;
Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA 514, 533.
[37] G.R. No. L-77951, 26 September 1988, 165 SCRA 725, 732-733.
[38] ART. 16.
Registration.
- A cooperative formed or organized under this Code acquires juridical
personality from the date the Cooperative Development Authority issues
a certificate of registration under its official seal. x x x.
(Republic Act No. 6938).
[39] ART. 38.
Composition of the Board of Directors. - The conduct and management of the affairs of a cooperative shall be vested in a board of directors x x x.
ART. 39.
Powers of the Board of Directors.
- The board of directors shall direct and supervise the business,
manage the property of the cooperative and may, by resolution, exercise
all such powers of the cooperative as are not reserved for the general
assembly under this Code and the by-laws. (Id.).
[40] CA
rollo, p. 63.
[41] Id. at 68-78.