1)

sssvs.bayona

TheFacultyCluboftheUniversityofSantoTomas,Inc.andSanBedaCollegeLayFacultyClub,Inc.filedapetition
fordeclaratoryreliefwithpreliminaryinjunctionbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaalleginginsubstancethat
theyhaveexistingagreementswiththeirrespectiveemployerstheUniversityofSantoTomasandSanBedaCollege
fortheestablishmentofgratuityandretirementfundswhichhavebeeninoperationpriortoSeptember1,1957;that
theSocialSecurityCommissiontriedtocompelthemtointegratetheirprivatesystemsintotheSocialSecuritySystem
onsaiddate;thatinasmuchastheirprivatesystemsgrantmorebenefitstothemembersthantheSocialSecuritySystem
theintegrationoftheirprivatesystemswoulddeprivetheirmembersofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw,aswellas
wouldimpairtheobligationoftheircontracttothedetrimentofthemembers.Hence,theyprayedfortheissuanceof
preliminaryinjunctionexpartecommandingtheSocialSecurityCommissiontodesistfromcompellingthemto
integrateduringthependencyofthecaseonthegroundthat,unlesssaidCommissionisenjoined,itmightenforcethe
penalprovisionsoftheSocialSecurityAct.
JudgeFroilanBayona,presiding,issuedexparteawritofpreliminaryinjunctionenjoiningtheSocialSecurity
Commissionfromcompellingtheintegrationsoughtfor.
TheSocialSecurityCommissionmovedtodissolvethepreliminaryinjunctiononthefollowinggrounds:(1)astatuteis
presumedconstitutional;(2)thereisnoirreparableinjuryshowntojustifytheissuanceofinjunction;(3)injunction
doesnotlieagainstlawsforpublicwelfare;(4)injunctiondoesnotlieagainstenforcementofpenallaws;(5)injunction
doesnotlietostopthecollectionofcontributionsundertheSocialSecurityLaw;and(6)thepreliminaryinjunction
wasbarredbylaches.
Themotiontodissolvewasdenied.Amotionforreconsiderationoftheorderhavinglikewisebeendenied,theSocial
SecurityCommissionfiledthepresentpetitionforcertiorariwithpreliminaryinjunction.

2) Sss vs. rizal poultry

TheinstantcasestemmedfromapetitionfiledbyAlbertoAngeles(Angeles)beforetheSocialSecurity
Commission(SSC)tocompelrespondentsRizalPoultryandLivestockAssociation,Inc.(RizalPoultry)or
BSDAgroIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(BSDAgro)toremittotheSocialSecuritySystem(SSS)all
contributionsdueforandinhisbehalf.RespondentscounteredwithaMotiontoDismiss3citingrulingsof
theNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)andCourtofAppealsregardingtheabsenceofemployer
employeerelationshipbetweenAngelesandtherespondents.

AngeleshadearlierfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalagainstBSDAgroand/oritsowner,BenjaminSanDiego
(SanDiego).TheLaborArbiterinitiallyfoundthatAngeleswasanemployeeandthathewasillegallydismissed.On
appeal,however,theNLRCreversedtheLaborArbiter'sDecisionandheldthatnoemployeremployeerelationship
existedbetweenAngelesandrespondents.Therulingwasanchoredonthefindingthatthedutiesperformedby
Angeles,suchascarpentry,plumbing,paintingandelectricalworks,werenotindependentandintegralstepsinthe
essentialoperationsofthecompany,whichisengagedinthepoultrybusiness.4AngeleselevatedthecasetotheCourt
ofAppealsviapetitionforcertiorari.TheappellatecourtaffirmedtheNLRCrulingandupheldtheabsenceof
employeremployeerelationship.

WONTHEDECISIONOFTHENLRCANDTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,FINDINGNOEMPLOYER
EMPLOYEERELATIONSHIP,CONSTITUTESRESJUDICATAASARULEONCONCLUSIVENESSOF
JUDGMENTASTOPRECLUDETHERELITIGATIONOFTHEISSUEOFEMPLOYEREMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIPINASUBSEQUENTCASEFILEDBEFORETHEPETITIONER.
WHETHERORNOTRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSMAYORDEROUTRIGHTTHEDISMISSALOF
THESSCCASEINTHECERTIORARIPROCEEDINGSBEFOREIT.13

ThemandatorycoverageundertheSocialSecurityActispremisedontheexistenceofanemployeremployee
relationship.24ThisisevidentfromSection9(a)whichprovides:
SEC.9.Coverage.(a)CoverageintheSSSshallbecompulsoryuponallemployeesnotoversixty(60)yearsofage
andtheiremployers:Provided,Thatinthecaseofdomestichelpers,theirmonthlyincomeshallnotbelessthanOne
thousandpesos(P1,000.00)amonth....

Section8(d)ofthesamelawdefinesanemployeeasanypersonwhoperformsservicesforanemployerinwhich
eitherorbothmentalorphysicaleffortsareusedandwhoreceivescompensationforsuchservices,wherethereisan
employeremployeerelationship.TheillegaldismissalcasebeforetheNLRCinvolvedaninquiryintotheexistenceor
nonexistenceofanemployeremployeerelationship.TheverysameinquiryisneededintheSSCcase.Andtherewas
noindicationthereinthatthereisanessentialconceptualdifferencebetweenthedefinitionof"employee"underthe
LaborCodeandtheSocialSecurityAct.
Intheinstantcase,therefore,resjudicataintheconceptof"conclusivenessofjudgment"applies.Thejudgmentinthe
NLRCcasepertainingtoafindingofanabsenceofemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenAngelesandrespondents
isconclusiveontheSSCcase.
Applyingtheruleonresjudicataby"conclusivenessofjudgment"inconjunctionwiththeaforecitedcases,theCourt
ofAppealsaptlyruled,thus:
InSSCCaseNo.91522501,privaterespondentAngelesisseekingtocompelhereinpetitionerstoremittotheSocial
SecuritySystem(SSS)allcontributionsdueforandinhisbehalf,whereasinNLRCNCRCA01806699(NLRC
RABIV5902897RI)privaterespondentprayedforthedeclarationofhisdismissalillegal.InSSCNo.91522501,
privaterespondent,inseekingtoenforcehisallegedrighttocompulsorySSScoverage,allegedthathehadbeenan
employeeofpetitioners;whereastosupporthispositioninthelaborcasethathewasillegallydismissedbypetitioners
BSDAgroand/orBenjaminSanDiego,heassertedthattherewasanemployeremployeerelationshipexistingbetween
himandpetitionersatthetimeofhisdismissalin1997.Simplystated,theissuecommontobothcasesiswhetherthere
existedanemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenprivaterespondentandpetitionersatthetimeoftheactscomplaint
ofwerecommittedbothinSSCCaseNo.91522501andNLRCNCRCA01806699(NLRCRABIV59028977
RI).
TheissueofemployeremployeerelationshipwaslaidtorestinCAG.R.SP.No.55383,throughthisCourt'sDecision
datedOctober27,2000whichhaslongattainedfinality.OuraffirmationoftheNLRCdecisionofMay18,1999was
anadjudicationonthemeritsofthecase.
Consideringtheforegoingcircumstances,theinstantcasefallssquarelyundertheumbrageofresjudicata,particularly,
undertheruleonconclusivenessofjudgment.Followingthisrule,asenunciatedinSmithBellandCo.andCarriaga,Jr.
cases,WeholdthatthereliefsoughtinSSCCaseNo.91522501isinextricablyrelatedtoOurrulinginCAG.R.SP
No.55383totheeffectthatprivaterespondentwasnotanemployeeofpetitioners.28
TheNLRCdecisionontheabsenceofemployeremployeerelationshipbeingbindingintheSSCcase,weaffirmthe
dismissalbyCourtofAppealsoftheSSCcase.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED.TheCourtofAppealsDecisiondated20September
2004,aswellasitsResolutiondated9February2005,isAFFIRMED.
3)republicofthePhilippinesvsasiaprocooperative