G.R. No. 181154. August 22, 2018.
RAMCHRISEN H. HAVERIA, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, CORAZON DE LA PAZ, AND LEONORA S. NUQUE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramchrisen H. Haveria was employed by the Social Security System (SSS) from 1958 to 1984. Concurrently, he served as an elected officer/treasurer of the SSS Employees’ Association (SSSEA). The SSSEA reported him as its employee for SSS coverage, which the SSS approved, and remitted his monthly contributions from 1966 to 1981. After leaving the SSS, Haveria worked for private companies, accumulating a total of 281 monthly contributions. Upon reaching retirement age in 1997, he received a monthly pension until 2002, when the SSS suspended it. The suspension was based on a prior legal opinion involving similar cases, which held that former SSS employees serving as union officers were not bona fide employees of the union and thus ineligible for compulsory coverage under the SSS.
Haveria filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) to declare his membership valid and restore his pension. He argued his contributions were valid as he was an SSSEA employee and that the SSS, by accepting his contributions for years, was estopped from denying his coverage. The SSC ruled his coverage was erroneous, finding no employer-employee relationship between him and the SSSEA, as he was a full-time government employee of the SSS at the time. It credited only 93 contributions from his later private employment and treated the SSSEA remittances as voluntary contributions, insufficient to meet the 120-month minimum for a pension. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SSC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether Haveria was validly covered as a compulsory member of the SSS during his tenure as an officer of the SSSEA, thereby entitling him to a monthly retirement pension.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower tribunals’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the compulsory coverage requirements under the Social Security Law. Compulsory SSS membership for employees requires a bona fide employer-employee relationship. The Court found no such relationship between Haveria and the SSSEA. The four-fold test for employment was not satisfied; Haveria remained a full-time employee of the SSS, a government agency, while serving as an unpaid, elected union officer. The SSSEA’s remittances were erroneous, as labor unions are not considered employers of their officers for SSS purposes. The principle of estoppel does not apply against the government, like the SSS, on matters of legal eligibility. Erroneous acceptance of contributions cannot confer valid membership if the statutory conditions are absent. While Haveria’s later private employment yielded valid contributions, they totaled only 93 months. The SSC correctly treated the erroneous SSSEA remittances as voluntary contributions, which could only be credited post-March 1997. Even with these, he could not attain the required 120 months of contributions for pension eligibility by his retirement date in 1997. Thus, his coverage was invalid for the contested period, and the suspension of his pension was proper.