G.R. No. 105884 . June 3, 1993.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND MACHINE TOOLS MFG. COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

The Social Security System (SSS) filed a petition for remittance of social security contributions with the Social Security Commission (SSC) against Machine Tools Manufacturing Company of the Philippines, Inc. An investigation by Field Representative Artemio M. Banta initially found the respondent liable for P308,277.67. After a reinvestigation, Banta submitted a report reducing the liability to P13,270.90. The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss, attaching the Field Assessment Report and SSS receipts to prove full payment. On October 16, 1986, the SSC dismissed the case. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the SSC granted in an order dated December 11, 1986, directing the parties to present further evidence. After hearing, the SSC issued an order on March 9, 1989, finding the private respondent liable for P308,277.67 in unremitted premium contributions from January 1978 to December 1979, plus penalties for late payment amounting to P1,121,301.49. Reconsideration was denied on February 7, 1990. The private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the SSC erred in granting the SSS’s motion for reconsideration and reopening the case, citing a rule that an order adverse to the SSS becomes immediately final and executory. The Court of Appeals agreed, declared the SSC’s March 9, 1989 resolution null and void, and reinstated the October 16, 1986 order of dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Social Security Commission (SSC) erred in granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the Social Security System (SSS) and in reopening the case after issuing an order of dismissal that was adverse to the SSS.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while the SSS was prohibited from appealing a decision of the SSC adverse to it under the relevant rules, it was not without a remedy. The SSS was allowed to file a motion for reconsideration with the SSC, which it did within the reglementary period. The filing of such a motion was expressly permitted under the rules of the SSC. The Court also sustained the factual findings of the SSC, noting that quasi-judicial agencies’ findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The SSC’s finding that the reduction of the assessment was unjustified due to the private respondent’s failure to submit necessary documents (books of accounts and ledgers) for examination was upheld. Under the Social Security Law, the SSS records are presumed correct unless properly corrected by the concerned parties, and no such corrections were made by the private respondent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed and reinstated the March 9, 1989 resolution and February 7, 1990 order of the SSC.