Presented by: Divine Octavio

Subject: SOCLEG
Professor: Atty. Japhet Masculino
Hacienda Cataywa
vs. Rosario Lorezo
GR No. 179640
March 18, 2015
 NATURE OF THE CASE:

• This is a Petition for Review on

Certiorari filed by the petitioner
Hacienda Cataywa, seeking to reverse
and set aside the resolution of CA and
SSC ordering the petitioner to pay
jointly and severally all delinquent
contributions and damages to
respondent Rosario Lorezo.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• On Oct. 22, 2002 respondent Lorezo
received a letter from SSS informing
her that she cannot avail of the
retirement benefits since per record
she has only paid 16 months, such is
104 months short of the minimum
requirement of 120 months inorder
to be entitled to the benefits.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• She was also informed that her
employment under employer
Hacienda Cataywa could not be
confirmed.
• Aggrieved, Lorezo filed a petition
before Social Security Commission.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• She alleged that she was employed as
laborer in Hacienda Cataywa managed
by Jose Marie Villanueva in 1970 but
was reported to SSS only in 1978.
• She alleged that contributions were
deducted from her wages from 1970 to
1995 but not all were remitted to the
SSS which caused the rejection of her
claim.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• In their answer, Manuel and Jose
Marie Villanueva refuted the
allegation that not all contribution of
the respondent were remitted. That
all farm workers were reported and
their contribution were duly paid and
remitted to SSS.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• Social Security Commission, in its
resolution held that Lorezo was a
regular employee subject to
compulsory coverage of Hacienda
Cataywa within the period of 1970 to
1995.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• SSC ordered Hda. Cataywa to pay
jointly and severally all deliquent
contributions and pay for damages in
the amount of P32,356.21 for
misrepresentation of the real date of
employment. Lorezo is to be paid of
her retirement benefit upon filling of
the claim thereof.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
• The petitioner elevated the case
before the CA but the case was
dismissed outrightly due to
technicalities.
 ISSUE:
• Are the petitioners liable for
delinquent contributions and for
damages due to misrepresentation?
 RULING :
• Supreme Court held that the
petitioners are liable for delinquent
contributions it being proven by
sufficient evidence that respondent
started working for the Hacienda in
1970. It follows that petitioners are
liable for deficiency in the SSS
contributions.
 RULING:
• The award of damages for
misrepresentation is based on the law that
should the employer misrepresents the
true date of the employment of the
employee member, such employer shall pay
to the SSS damages equivalent to the
difference between the amount of benefit
entitled and the amount payable on the
basis of the contributions actually remitted.
 RULING:
• The petition for Certiorari was
denied and consequently the
resolution of SSC was affirmed with
modification that the delinquent
contribution should be computed as
six (6) months per years of service.
RULING:
-End-