UNITED CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY, et. al. vs. SSC, et. al.

G.R. No. L-26712-16/ December 27, 1969

TEEHANKEE

Facts –

The five petitioners originally filed on November 20, 1964 separate petitions withrespondent
Commission, contesting the social security coverage of American missionaries whoperform religious
missionary work in the Philippines under specific employment contracts withpetitioners. After several
hearings, however, petitioners commendably desisted from furthercontesting said coverage manifesting
that they had adopted a policy of cooperation with thePhilippine authorities in its program of social
amelioration, with which they are in completeaccord. They instead filed their consolidated amended
petition dated May 7, 1966, praying forcondonation of assessed penalties against them for delayed
social security premium remittancesin the aggregate amount of P69,446.42 for the period from
September, 1958 to September, 1963.

On May 25, 1966, respondent System filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Social

Security Commission has no power or authority to condone penalties for late premium.

Issue –

1) Whether or not respondent Commission erred in ruling that it has no authority under the

Social Security Act to condone the penalty prescribed by law for late premium

remittances.

2)

Ruling –

The plain text and intent of the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act clearly ruleout petitioners'
posture that the respondent Commission should assume, as against the mandatoryimposition of the 3%
penalty per month for late payment of premium remittances, thediscretionary authority of condoning,
waiving or relinquishing such penalty. Nowhere from saidpowers of the Commission may it be shown
that the Commission is granted expressly or byimplication the authority to condone penalties imposed
by the Act.

Being a mere trustee of the funds of the System which actually belong to the members,respondent
Commission cannot legally perform any acts affecting the same, includingcondonation of penalties, that
would diminish the property rights of the owners and beneficiaries

of such funds without an express or specific authority therefor.

Where the language of the law is clear and the intent of the legislature is equally plain,there is no room
for interpretation and construction of the statute. The Court is therefore bound to uphold respondent
Commission's refusal to arrogate unto itself the authority to condone penaltiesfor late payment of social
security premiums, for otherwise we would be sanctioning theCommission's reading into the law
discretionary powers that are not actually provided therein, and hindering and defeating the plain
purpose and intent of the legislature. ACCORDINGLY, the

order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

santiago vs ca- petitioner employees' contributions to sss such as their php7,900 salary loans and
php13,000 back premiums were not remitted by their employer to sss. petitioner then requested for the
amounts to be credited in their favor but ssc denied the petition stating that petitioners should have
proceeded against their employer if it is true that their contributions were not remitted. sc stated that
SSS Circular No. 52 provides:

“(2) In case the borrower is in active employment, payment shall be made thru his employer by means
of salary deductions. For this purpose, he shall expressly authorize in the application form his employer
and the subsequent employers to whom he may later on transfer to deduct from his salaries the
installments due. The employer, in turn shall remit to the System these installments in accordance with
the procedure laid down in heading VII hereof.”

petitioners also rely on the “Current Employer’s Certification/Agreement” (Exhibits “N-1”, “U-1”, “V-1”
and “W-1”) providing that the employer is empowered:

“1. To deduct monthly from the salaries of said employee the installments due on the loan that may be
granted by virtue of this application and to remit the same to the System not later than the 20th day of
the month following the end of each calendar quarter, the employer being entitled to deduct from the
total quarterly collections P.07 for every P10.00 thereof as his collection fee”.

The foregoing reiterates the proviso in SSS Circular No. 52, reading:

“V. Service and Collection Fee.—The System shall charge a service fee of P3.50 for every approved
application deductible in advance from the proceeds of the loan.

“However, the employer shall be entitled to deduct from the total quarterly collections that he remits to
the System a collection fee of seven centavos (P.07) for every ten pesos (P10.00) or fraction thereof.”

The entitlement to the collection fee by the employer neither makes the latter the agent of the System.
The fee was devised to encourage employers to be prompt in the remittance of their collections to the
System.
premiums under section 22b of social security act state that premiums that were not remitted by the
employer may be collected by ssc therefore the failure or refusal of employer to remit is not a prejudice
to the employee's entitlement of benefits.