G.R. No. L-21448; August 30, 1967
Poblete Construction Co., petitioner, vs. Judith Asiain, Social Security Commission and Benito Macrhon, in his capacity as Sheriff of Rizal, respondents.

FACTS

Miguel Asiain was an employee of Poblete Construction Company from 1956 until his death on November 22, 1959. Upon his death, his widow, Judith Asiain, filed a petition before the Social Security Commission (SSC) against the company to recover various sums, including P3,600 equivalent to one year’s salary of the deceased, based on Section 24 of Republic Act No. 1161 (the Social Security Act), as amended. The company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the SSC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The SSC denied the motion, declared the company in default for failure to answer, and, in its resolution, awarded the P3,600 claim pursuant to Section 24. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The case was elevated for review, initially to the Court of Appeals, and was later certified to the Supreme Court. The company maintains that the SSC had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for P3,600, arguing that the deceased was not a member of the Social Security System because, although he had accomplished the required employee form, the company never filed it with the System due to the employee’s alleged refusal to have his share of contributions deducted from his salary.

ISSUE

Whether the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for damages under Section 24 of the Social Security Act, which liability arises from an employer’s failure to report an employee to the System.

RULING

Yes, the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found the company’s argument untenable. The deceased employee was subject to compulsory coverage under the Act. The duty of the employer to report the employee to the System under Section 24 is mandatory and does not depend on the employee’s willingness to pay his share of the contributions. The employer’s failure to report renders it liable for damages equivalent to the benefits the employee would have been entitled to had he been reported. While Section 24 uses the word “damages,” this does not deprive the SSC of jurisdiction. Section 5(a) of the Act and the promulgated rules vest the Commission with authority over the “filing, determination and settlement of claims,” a term broad enough to include a claim for damages under Section 24. To hold otherwise would allow an employer to nullify the Commission’s jurisdiction by simply not making the required report. The employer’s liability is clear, and the amount was properly determined. The decision of the Social Security Commission was affirmed.