G.R. No. 206936 , August 3, 2016.
PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and MATEO A BELIZAR, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 28, 2004, respondent Mateo A. Belizar filed a case before the Social Security Commission (SSC) to establish his actual period of employment with petitioner PICOP Resources, Inc. and compel the latter to remit unpaid SSS premium contributions so he could collect his retirement benefits. The SSC, in its February 4, 2009 Resolution, found that Belizar was continuously employed as a preventive maintenance mechanic from November 1966 to December 1978. The SSC held that his employment was regular, not purely casual, as his work was necessary and desirable to PICOP’s paper production business. Consequently, the SSC ordered PICOP to pay unremitted contributions, penalties, and damages for failure to remit prior to Belizar’s retirement. PICOP’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PICOP filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the SSC committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on testimonial evidence over its documentary evidence. Meanwhile, on April 26, 2010, PICOP remitted the principal amount of unremitted contributions (P1,373.10) to the SSS, purportedly under Republic Act No. 9903 (Social Security Condonation Law of 2009). The SSS certified that PICOP had not filed an Application for Condonation under RA 9903, had paid only the principal, and that penalties and damages remained unpaid. The CA dismissed PICOP’s petition, affirming the SSC. PICOP then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Social Security Commission’s ruling that held petitioner PICOP Resources, Inc. liable for unremitted SSS contributions, penalties, and damages for respondent Mateo A. Belizar’s employment from 1966 to 1978.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the SSC’s finding of continuous employment from 1966 to 1978 was supported by substantial evidence, including credible testimonies of Belizar’s witnesses and admissions from PICOP’s own records. The Court ruled that the SSC correctly determined Belizar’s employment was regular, not purely casual exempt from coverage, as his work as a preventive maintenance mechanic was necessary and desirable to PICOP’s business. Furthermore, the Court held that PICOP could not avail of the penalty condonation under RA 9903 because it did not file a formal application for condonation as required by the law and implementing rules. The SSS certification confirmed PICOP had not applied for condonation, and such an application for a single employee would be denied as the law requires availment for all employees of the delinquent employer. Since PICOP did not qualify under RA 9903, it remained liable for the adjudged penalties and damages as ordered by the SSC.