7/26/2019 7. Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254

1/4

G.R. No. 138254 July 30, 2004

ANGELITO L. LAZARO, Proprietor o Roy!l "t!r #!r$eti%&,petitioner,vs."O'IAL "E'(RIT) 'O##I""ION, RO"ALINA LA(*ATO, "O'IAL "E'(RIT) ")"TE# !%+

TE ONORA-LE 'O(RT O APPEAL",respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J./

Before us is a Petition for Reviewunder Rule 45, assailing the Decision1of the Court of ppeals!ifteenth Division"in C#$.R. Sp. No. 4%&5', pro(ulgated on "% Nove()er 1&&*, +hih affir(edt+o rulings of the Soial Seurit- Co((ission /SSC/0 dated * Nove()er 1&&5 and "4 pril 1&&'.

rivate respondent Rosalina 2. 3audato /3audato/0 filed a petition )efore the SSC for soial

seurit- overage and re(ittane of unpaid (onthl- soial seurit- ontri)utions against her three0 e(plo-ers. (ong the respondents +as herein petitioner ngelito 3. 3aaro /3aaro/0,proprietor of Ro-al Star 2ar6eting /Ro-al Star/0, +hih is engaged in the )usiness of selling ho(eapplianes.3audato alleged that despite her e(plo-(ent as sales supervisor of the sales agentsfor Ro-al Star fro( pril of 1&7& to 2arh of 1&*', 3aaro had failed during the said period, to reporther to the SSC for o(pulsor- overage or re(it 3audato8s soial seurit- ontri)utions.4

3aaro denied that 3audato +as a sales supervisor of Ro-al Star, averring instead that she +as a(ere sales agent +ho( he paid purel- on o((ission )asis. 3aaro also (aintained that 3audato+as not su)9eted to definite hours and onditions of +or6. s suh, 3audato ould not )e dee(edan e(plo-ee of Ro-al Star.5

fter the parties su)(itted their respetive position papers, the SSC pro(ulgateda Resolution'dated * Nove()er 1&&5 ruling in favor of 3audato.7ppl-ing the /ontrol test,/ it heldthat 3audato +as an e(plo-ee of Ro-al Star, and ordered Ro-al Star to pa- the unre(itted soialseurit- ontri)utions of 3audato in the a(ount of !ive :housand Seven esos and :hirt- !iveCentavos 5,%%7.50, together +ith the penalties totaling :+ent- :+o :housand :+o ;undredEighteen esos and !ift- !our Centavos "","1*.540. In addition, Ro-al Star +as (ade lia)le topa- da(ages to the SSC in the a(ount of !ifteen :housand Si< ;undred Eight- esos and SevenCentavos 15,'*%.%70 for not reporting 3audato for soial seurit- overage, pursuant to Setion "4of the Soial Seurit- 3a+.*

fter 3aaro8s Motion for Reconsideration)efore the SSC +as denied,&3aaro filed a Petition forReview+ith the Court of ppeals. 3aaro reiterated that 3audato +as (erel- a sales agent +ho +aspaid purel- on o((ission )asis, not inluded in the o(pan- pa-roll, and +ho neither o)served

regular +or6ing hours nor ao(plished ti(e ards.

In its assailed Decision, the Court of ppeals noted that 3aaro8s argu(ents +ere a reprise of thosealread- presented )efore the SSC.1%2oreover, 3aaro had not o(e for+ard +ith partiulars andspeifis in his petition to sho+ that the Co((ission8s ruling is not supported )- su)stantialevidene.11:hus, the appellate ourt affir(ed the finding that 3audato +as an e(plo-ee of Ro-alStar, and hene entitled to overage under the Soial Seurit- 3a+.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt1

7/26/2019 7. Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254

2/4

Before this Court, 3aaro again insists that 3audato +as not =ualified for soial seurit- overage, asshe +as not an e(plo-ee of Ro-al Star, her ino(e dependent on a generation of sales and )asedon o((issions.1"It is argued that Ro-al Star had no ontrol over 3audato8s ativities, and thatunder the so#alled /ontrol test,/ 3audato ould not )e dee(ed an e(plo-ee.1

It is an aepted dotrine that for the purposes of overage under the Soial Seurit- t, the

deter(ination of e(plo-er#e(plo-ee relationship +arrants the appliation of the /ontrol test,/ thatis, +hether the e(plo-er ontrols or has reserved the right to ontrol the e(plo-ee, not onl- as tothe result of the +or6 done, )ut also as to the (eans and (ethods )- +hih the sa(e isao(plished.14:he SSC, as sustained )- the Court of ppeals, appl-ing the ontrol test found that3audato +as an e(plo-ee of Ro-al Star. >e find no reversi)le error.

3aaro8s argu(ents are nothing (ore )ut a (ere reiteration of argu(ents unsuessfull- posed)efore t+o )odies? the SSC and the Court of ppeals. :he- li6e+ise put to issue fatual =uestionsalread- passed upon t+ie )elo+, rather than =uestions of la+ appropriate for revie+ under a Rule45 petition. :he deter(ination of an e(plo-er#e(plo-ee relationship depends heavil- on thepartiular fatual iru(stanes attending the professional interation of the parties. :he Court is nota trier of fats15and aords great +eight to the fatual findings of lo+er ourts or agenies +hose

funtion is to resolve fatual (atters.

1'

3aaro8s argu(ents (a- )e dispensed +ith )- appl-ing preedents. Suffie it to sa-, the fat that3audato +as paid )- +a- of o((ission does not prelude the esta)lish(ent of an e(plo-er#e(plo-ee relationship. InGrepalife v. Judico,17the Court upheld the ee are disinlined to reverse this finding, in the a)seneof ountervailing evidene fro( 3aaro and also in light of the fat that 3audato8s alling ards fro(Ro-al Star indiate that she is indeed a sales supervisor.

:he finding of the SSC that 3audato +as an e(plo-ee of Ro-al Star is supported )- su)stantialevidene. :he SSC e

7/26/2019 7. Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254

3/4

piee of dou(entar- evidene appreiated )- the SSC is 2e(orandu( dated 2a- 1&*% of:eresita 3aaro, $eneral 2anager of Ro-al Star, direting that no o((issions +ere to )e given onall /(ain offie/ sales fro( +al6#in usto(ers and en9oining sales(en and sales supervisors too)serve this ne+ poli-."':he 2e(orandu( evines the fat that, ontrar- to 3aaro8s lai(, Ro-alStar e;ERE!ORE, the Petitionis DENIED and the assailed Decisionof the Court of ppeals dated "%Nove()er 1&&* is !!IR2ED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254

acts!

Rosalina Laudato fled a petition beore the SSC or social security coverage and

remittance o unpaid monthly social security contributions against her three (3)

employers. Among them as Angelito La!aro" proprietor o Royal Star" hich is engaged

in the business o selling home appliances. Laudato alleged that despite her

employment as sales supervisor o the sales agents or Royal Star rom April o #$%$ to

&arch o #$'" La!aro had ailed during the said period" to report her to the SSC or

compulsory coverage or remit Laudatos social security contributions.

La!aro denied that Laudato as a sales supervisor o Royal Star" averring instead that

she as a mere sales agent hom he paid purely on commission basis. La!aro

also maintained that Laudato as not sub*ected to defnite hours and conditions o

or+. As such" she could not be deemed an employee o Royal Star.

"ssue! #$% Laudato is considered employee o Royal Star &ar+eting,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_138254_2004.html#fnt32

7/26/2019 7. Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254

4/4

&el'! Laudato is an employee o Royal Star and as such is entitled to the coverage o

Social Security La.

-t is an accepted doctrine that or the purposes o coverage under the Social Security

Act" the determination o employeremployee relationship arrants the application o

the control test*that is" hether the employer controls or has reserved the right to

control the employee" not only as to the result o the or+ done" but also as to the

means and methods by hich the same is accomplished.

/he act that Laudato as paid by ay o commission does not preclude the

establishment o an employeremployee relationship. -n Grepalife v. Judico" the Court

upheld the e0istence o an employeremployee relationship beteen the insurance

company and its agents" despite the act that the compensation that the agents on

commission received as not paid by the company but by the investor or the person

insured. /he relevant actor remains" as stated earlier" hether the 1employer1 controls

or has reserved the right to control the 1employee1 not only as to the result o the or+

to be done but also as to the means and methods by hich the same is to be

accomplished. -t should also be emphasi!ed that the SSC" also as upheld by the Courto Appeals" ound that Laudato as a sales supervisor and not a mere agent. As such"

Laudato oversa and supervised the sales agents o the company" and thus as sub*ect

to the control o management as to ho she implements its policies and its end results.

/he fnding o the SSC that Laudato as anemployee o Royal Star is supported by substantial evidence. /he SSC e0amined thecash vouchers issued by Royal Star to Laudato" calling cards o Royal Star denominatingLaudato as a 2Sales Supervisor o the company" and Certifcates o Appreciation issuedby Royal Star to Laudato in recognition o her unselfsh and loyal e4orts in promotingthe company.

A piece o documentary evidence appreciated by the SSC is &emorandum dated 3 &ay#$'5 o /eresita La!aro" 6eneral &anager o Royal Star" directing that no commissionsere to be given on all 2main o7ce sales rom al+in customers and en*oiningsalesmen and sales supervisors to observe this ne policy. /he &emorandum evincesthe act that Royal Star e0ercised control over its sales supervisors or agents such asLaudato as to the means and methods through hich these personnel perormed theiror+.