SSS V ASIAPRO COOP, G.R. No.
172101, 23 Nov 2007
FACTS: Respondent Asiapro Cooperative has owner-members who do not receive compensation
or wages. Instead, they receive a share in the service surplus which the Respondent earns from
its trade. Some of its owner-members were assigned in Stanfilco. To enjoy the benefits of the
Social Security Law, the said owner-members requested that they be registered with the
Petitioner Social Security System (SSS) as self-employed, and to remit contributions. However,
the Petitioner SSS informed the Respondent that it is a manpower contractor supplying
employees to Stanfilco, and the employer of the owner-members assigned in Stanfilco. Thus, the
Respondent should register itself as an employer. The Respondent replied that it is not an
employer because the owner-members are the cooperative itself; it cannot be its own
employer.
Accordinlgy, the Petitioner SSS filed a petition before the Petitioner Social Security Commission
(SSC) against the Respondent and Stanfilco in order to direct them to register as an employer
and their owner-members be covered as employees. The Respondent filed its Answer with
Motion to Dismiss alleging that no employer-employee relationship exists between it and its
owner-members. Thus, the Petitioner SSC has no jurisdiction over the case. The Petitioner SSC
denied the motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition of the Respondent, dismissing the
complaint filed by the Petitioner SSS. Hence, the Present petition whereby the Petitioner SSC
contends that it has jurisdiction over the case because the law provides that it has the power to
settle disputes on compulsory coverage, benefits, contributions, and any other matter related
thereto.
ISSUE: W/N there exists an employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and its
owner-members.
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the following elements must be present: (a) the selection and engagement of
workers; (b) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control,
whereby it involves not only the result or work to be done, but also the means and methods to
accomplish. Further, the existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated
by expressly repudiating it in a contract when the terms and surrounding circumstances show
otherwise, considering that employment status is defined by law, and not by the parties.
In the present case, the employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and its
owner-members is present: (a) the Respondent has exclusive discretion in the selection and
engagement of the owner-member; (b) the weekly stipends or shares in the service surplus
given by the Respondent to the owner-members were actually wages; (c) the Respondent has
the power to investigate, discipline, and remove its owner-members who were rendering
services in Stanfilco; and (d) the Respondent has the sole control over the manner and means of
performing services under the Service Contracts with Stanfilco, as well as the means and
methods of work of its owner-members. Indeed, there is an employer-employee relationship.
Further, the Service Contract which contains a repudiation of the employee-employer
relationship between the Respondent and its owner-members must be struck down for being
contrary to law and public policy since it merely serves to circumvent the compulsory coverage
of its employees under the Social Security Law.
