Social Legislation Bar Exam

Government Service Insurance System

2004
Atty. CLM, a dedicated and efficient public official, was
the top executive of a government owned and
controlled corporation (GOCC).

While inspecting an ongoing project in a remote village
in Mindanao, she suffered a stroke and since then had
been confined to a wheelchair.

At the time she stopped working because of her illness
in line of duty, Atty. CLM was only sixty years old but
she had been an active member of the GSIS for thirty
years without any break in her service record.

What benefits could she claim from the GSIS?
Cite at least five benefits.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The benefits Atty. CLM could claim from the GSIS are:
1. Employees compensation which shall include
both income and medical and related benefits,
including rehabilitation;
2. Temporary total disability benefit;
3. Permanent total disability benefit;
4. Separation benefit; and
5. Retirement benefit.

1999
FACTS: Pitoy Mondero was employed as a public school
teacher at the Marinduque High School from July 1,
1983 until his untimely demise on May 27, 1997.

On April 27, 1997, a memorandum was issued by the
school principal, which reads: "You are hereby
designated to prepare the MODEL DAM project, which
will be the official entry of or school the forthcoming
Division Search for Outstanding Improvised Secondary
Science Equipment for Teachers to be held in Manila on
June 4, 1997.

You are hereby instructed to complete this MODEL
DAM on or before the scheduled date of the contest."

Mordero complied with his superior's instruction and
constructed an improvised electric microdam, which he
took home to enable him to finish it before the
deadline. On May 27, 1997, while working on the
MODEL DAM Project in his house, he came to contact
with a live wire and was electrocuted. He was
immediately brought to a clinic for emergency
treatment but was pronounced dead on arrival.

The death certificate showed that he died of cardiac
arrest due to accidental electrocution.

Pepay Palaypay (Pitoy Mondero's common-law wife for
more than twenty years) and a Pitoy Mordero Jr. (his
only son) filed a claim for death benefits with the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which
was denied on the ground that Pitoy Mordeno's death
did not arise out of and in the course of employment
and therefore not compensable because the accident
occurred in his house and not in the school premises.

a. Is Pepay Palaypay entitled to file a claim for
death benefits with the GSIS? Why?

b. Is the cause of death of Pitoy Mordeno (cardiac
arrest due to accidental electrocution in his
house) compensable? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The beneficiaries of a member of the GSIS are
entitled to the benefits arising from the death
of said member. Death benefits are called
survivorship benefits under the GSIS Law.

Not being a beneficiary, Pepay Palaypay to not
entitled to receive survivorship benefits. She is
not a beneficiary because she to a common-law
wife and not a legal dependent spouse.


b. Yes. To be compensable under the GSIS Law,
the death need not be work connected.

2005
Odeck, a policeman, was on leave for a month. While
resting in their house, he heard two of his neighbors
fighting with each other. Odeck rushed to the scene
intending to pacify the protagonists.

However, he was shot to death by one of the
protagonists. Zhop, a housemaid, was Odeck's surviving
spouse whom he had abandoned for another woman
years back. When she learned of Odeck's death, Zhop
filed a claim with the GSIS for death benefits. However,
her claim was denied because: (a) when Odeck was
killed, he was on leave; and (b) she was not the
dependent spouse of Odeck when he died.
Social Legislation Bar Exam

Resolve with reasons whether GSIS is correct in denying
the claim.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, because under the law, a dependent is one who is a
legitimate spouse living with the employee. (Article
167[i], Labor Code) In the problem given, Zhop had
been abandoned by Odeck who was then living already
with another woman at the time of his death.

Moreover, Odeck was on leave when he was killed. The
24-hour duty rule does not apply when the policeman is
on vacation leave. (Employees' Compensation
Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121545,
November 14, 1996) Taking together jurisprudence and
the pertinent guidelines of the ECC with respect to
claims for death benefits, namely:
a. that the employee must be at the place where
his work requires him to be;
b. that the employee must have been performing
his official functions; and
c. that if the injury is sustained elsewhere, the
employee must have been executing an order
for the employer, it is not difficult to
understand then why Zhop's claim was denied
by the GSIS. (Tancinco v. Government Service
Insurance System, G.R. No. 132916, November
16, 2001)

In the present case, Odeck was resting at his house
when the incident happened; thus, he was not at the
place where his work required him to be.

Although at the time of his death Odeck was performing
a police function, it cannot be said that his death
occurred elsewhere other than the place where he was
supposed to be because he was executing an order for
his employer.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
GSIS is correct in denying the claim not on the grounds
provided in the problem but for the reason that
uniformed members of the PNP are not covered by R.A.
No. 8291 or the GSIS Law of
1997.
























































Social Legislation Bar Exam
Maternity
2000
Ms. Sara Mira is an unwed mother with three children
from three different fathers. In 1999, she became a
member of the Social Security System.

In August 2000, she suffered a miscarriage, also out of
wedlock, and again by a different father. Can Ms. Mira
claim maternity benefits under the Social Security Act of
1997? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, she can claim maternity benefit. Entitlement
thereto is not dependent on the claimant's being legally
married. (Sec. 14-A, Social Security Act of 1997).

2005
Mans Weto had been an employee of Nopolt Assurance
Company for the last ten (10) years.

His wife of six (6) years died last year. They had four (4)
children. He then fell in love with Jovy, his co-employee,
and they got married.

In October this year, Weto's new wife is expected to
give birth to her first child. He has accordingly filed his
application for paternity leave, conformably with the
provisions of the Paternity Leave Law which took effect
in 1996.

The HRD manager of the assurance firm denied his
application, on the ground that Weto had already used
up his entitlement under the law.

Weto argued that he has a new wife who will be giving
birth for the first time, therefore, his entitlement to
paternity leave benefits would begin to run anew.

Is Jovy entitled to maternity leave benefits?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Jovy's maternity benefit is personal to her and she
is entitled under the law to avail herself of the same for
the first four times of her deliver. (R.A. No. 8282)







Social Security Law
1995
Big Foot Company of Paete, Laguna, has been in the
business of manufacturing wooden sandals for export
since 5 November 1980. On 5 January
1994 it employed an additional labor complement of
thirty workers, two supervisors and two department
managers. On 5 February 1994 it hired five carpenters
to fix the roof and walls of its factory which were
destroyed by typhoon "Huaning."

Who among the aforementioned persons are
compulsorily covered by the Social Security Law and
when should they be considered effectively covered?
Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that all of them were not yet over sixty years
of age, the additional labor complement of thirty
workers, two supervisors and two department
managers were compulsorily covered by the Social
Security Law on 5 January 1994, when they were
employed.

According to said law, workers are covered on the day
of their employment. But the five carpenters which the
company hired to fix the roof and walls of its factory
were not under the compulsory coverage of the Social
Security Law because said carpenters are casual
employees.

The Social Security Law provides that employment
purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or
the business of the employer are not under its
compulsory coverage.

1999
Marvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying
services for the members and guests of the Barili Golf &
Country Club. As such caddy, he is subject to Barili golfs
rules and regulations governing Caddies regarding
conduct, dress, language, etc.

However, he does not have to observe any working
hours, he is free to leave anytime he pleases; and he
can stay away for as long as he likes. Nonetheless, if he
is found remiss in the observance of club rules, he can
be disciplined by being barred from the premises of
Barili Golf.

Social Legislation Bar Exam
Is Marvin within the compulsory coverage of the Social
Security System? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Because he is not an employee of the Barili Golf &
Country Club, Marvin is not within the compulsory
coverage of the Social Security System. Marvin is not an
employee of the club because under the specific
circumstances of his relations with the club, he is not
under the orders of the club as regards employment
which would have made him an employee of the club.
(See Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. IAC, 237 SCRA
207)

But Marvin is within the compulsory coverage of the SSS
as a self-employed person. (See Section 9-A, Social
Security Law of 1957)

2000
The Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Golden
Corporation Inc. and the Golden Corporation Workers
Union provides a package of welfare benefits far
superior in comparison with those provided for in the
Social Security Act of 1997. The welfare plan of the
company is funded solely by the employer with no
contributions from the employees. Admittedly, it is the
best welfare plan in the Philippines. The company and
the union jointly filed a petition with the Social Security
System for exemption from coverage. Will the petition
for exemption from coverage prosper? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because coverage under the SSS is compulsory
where employer-employee relations exist. However, if
the private plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan
may be integrated with the SSS plan. Still, it is
integration and not exemption from SSS law. (Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc. v. Social Security System, 17
SCRA 107(1966); RA. No. 1161 as amended by RA No.
8282}.

2002
The owners of FALCON Factory, a company engaged in
the assembling of automotive components, decided to
have their building renovated. Fifty (50) persons,
composed of engineers, architects and other
construction workers, were hired by the company for
this purpose. The work was estimated to be completed
in three (3) years. The employees contended that since
the work would be completed after more than one (1)
year, they should be subject to compulsory coverage
under the Social Security Law. Do you agree with their
contention? Explain your answer fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Under Section 8 (j) of RA 1161, as amended,
employment of purely casual and not for the purpose of
the occupation or business of the employer are
excepted from compulsory coverage.
An employment is purely casual if it is not for the
purpose of occupation or business of the
employer.

In the problem given, Falcon Factory is a company
engaged in the assembling of automotive components.

The fifty (50) persons (engineers, architects and
construction workers) were hired by Falcon Factory to
renovate its building. The work to be performed by
these fifty (60) people is not in connection with the
purpose of the business of the factory. Hence, the
employ of these fifty (50) persons is purely casual. They
are, therefore, excepted from the compulsory coverage
of the SSS law.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I agree with the contention that the employees hired by
the owners of FALCON factory as construction workers
in the renovation of its building should be under the
compulsory coverage of the Social Security Law.

It is true that in connection with FALCON Factory, which
is engaged in the assembling of automotive
components, the construction workers may be
considered casual employees because their
employment is not for the purpose of occupation of
business of FALCON Factory. As such, in accordance
with Section 8{j) of the Social Security Law, they are
excepted form the compulsory coverage of the Social
Security System.

But they could also be considered project employees of
FALCON Factory and as such could be under the
compulsory coverage of the SSS, applying Art 4 of the
Labor Code that provides that all doubts in the
Implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
Labor Law shall be resolved in favor of labor. The
employees here therefore, should be considered as
under the compulsory coverage of the SSS.



Social Legislation Bar Exam
Benefits Claims
1995
Is it necessary for an employee to litigate in order to
establish and enforce his right to compensation?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. All that an employee does to claim employee's
compensation is to file a claim for said benefits with the
SSS (for those in the private sector) or GSIS (for those in
the public sector).

In the event that the claim is denied on the SSS/GSIS
level, claimant may appeal to the Employees
Compensation Commission where he may prove the
causal connection between injury and nature of work.

2001
In 1960, Juan hired Pablo to drive for the former's
lumber company. In 1970, Pablo got sick and was
temporarily laid-off. In 1972, Pablo recovered and
resumed working for the same lumber company, now
run by Juan's wife since Juan had already passed away.
In 1996, Pablo retired. When Pablo applied for
retirement benefits with the SSS that same year, he
discovered that the lumber company never enrolled
him as an employee, much less remitted his
contributions that were deducted from his salary. The
lumber company agreed to pay for Pablo's contributions
plus penalties but maintained that most of Pablo's
claims had already prescribed under Art, 1150 of the
Civil Code. (Art. 1150 provides "The time for
prescription of all kinds of actions, when there is no
special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be
counted from the day they may be brought."). Is the
Lumber company's contention correct? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The lumber company's contention is not correct.

The Social Security Law (in Sec. 22(b) provides that the
right to institute the necessary action against an
employer may be commenced within twenty (20) years
from the time the delinquency is known or the
assessment is made by the SSS, or from the time the
benefit accrues, as the case may be.




Coverage
State the respective coverages of {a} the Social Security
Law and (b) the Revised government Service Insurance
Act

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Coverage of SSS (Sec. 9. RA 8282) shall be
compulsory upon all employees not over sixty
years of age and their employers.
Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign
based employers for employment abroad may
be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis.

Coverage in the SSS shall also be compulsory
upon all self-employed persons earning P1,800
or more per annum.
b. Membership in the Government Service Insurance
System (Art. 3, RA 8291) shall be compulsory for all
permanent employees below 60 years of age upon
appointment to permanent status, and for all
elective officials for the duration of their tenure.
Any person, whether elected or appointed, in
the service of an employer is a covered
employee if he receives compensation for such
service.