GR L 19587; (May, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965
RAFAEL JALOTJOT, petitioner, vs. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ELIZALDE ROPE COMPANY, and the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, respondents.
FACTS
Rafael Jalotjot became an employee-member of the Social Security System on September 1, 1954, while employed by Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. In October 1957, he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis and was confined at his employer’s mine hospital and later at the Quezon Institute. On November 6, 1958, his employer separated him from service. The employer remitted premium contributions only up to September 1957 and refused Jalotjot’s demand for sickness benefits up to his separation in November 1958. Jalotjot filed a petition with the Social Security Commission, which held Marinduque liable for his sickness benefits. Marinduque appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Social Security Commission acted within its authority in ordering the appellant to remit its share of premium contributions despite the lack of a cross-claim by the System.
2. Whether the claimant-employee is entitled to sickness benefits despite not having been a member for at least one year or having paid premiums for at least six months at the time of his confinement.
3. Whether the Commission had authority to order the deduction of the employee’s share of the premium from his sickness benefits.
RULING
1. Yes. Hearings before the Commission are administrative and not strictly governed by technical rules of procedure. The Commission, vested with the direction and control of the System, acted within its authority upon discovering the appellant’s non-compliance with its statutory duty to remit premiums. The appellant was not prejudiced, as it had the opportunity to interpose its defense.
2. Yes. Jalotjot was a member of the System from September 1957 until his termination in November 1958, a period exceeding one year. His membership was not terminated by his sickness. The employer was responsible for remitting the employee’s share of premiums throughout that period, as payment of contributions is compulsory as long as the employer-employee relationship exists, even if the employee is on sick leave without pay, following the precedent set in Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines vs. Social Security System.
3. Yes. This assignment of error fails based on the same premises and reasoning as the second issue. The Commission’s order was proper.
The appealed resolution of the Social Security Commission is affirmed.