POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO., PETITIONER, VS. JUDITH ASIAIN, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, AND BENITO MACRHON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

Miguel Asiain was an employee of the Poblete Construction Company from 1956 until his death on November 22, 1959, with a monthly
salary of P300.  Upon his death his
widow, Judith Asiain, for herself and her minor
children, filed a petition before the Social Security Commission against the
company and its manager, Domingo Poblete (Case No.
78), to recover the following sums:  (1)
P3,600.00 equivalent to one year’s salary of the de­ceased; (2) P600.00
representing his unpaid salary for two months; (3) P288.00 “representing
the cash received by respondents from their laborers as contribution to the
family of the deceased;” and (4) P2,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.

The respondents below moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that the Social Security Commission had no jurisdiction over the
subject-matter and that the petitioner Judith Asiain
had no capacity to sue.  The Commission denied the motion to
dismiss in its order of February 25,
1960 and ordered the respondents to file their answer.  When no answer was forthcoming, the
respondents were declared in default in an order dated March 9, 1960, and the petitioners were allowed to
present their evidence.

In its resolution of September
15, 1960 the Commission declared
itself without jurisdiction to entertain the claims in the petition except the
one for the sum of P3,600, which it awarded on the basis of the evidence
adduced at the hearing and pursuant to Sec­tion 24 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended.  A sub­sequent motion for reconsideration
filed by the respond­ents was denied, and they elevated the case for review by
the Court of Appeals, which upon proper application issued a writ of
preliminary injunction to stop all further proceedings below, including
execution of the award.

The case was afterwards certified to this Court for the reason
that when the respondents below were declared in default they lost their
standing before the Commission, and not having regained the same by a motion to set aside or petition for
relief, they had no right to appeal from the default judgment; and that in any
event no questions of fact are involved and hence, if at all appealable, the appeal should be directly to this Court.

The procedural issues, we believe, need not concern us.  The main point raised here by the Poblete Construction Company, which it raised also in its
motion to dismiss before the Commission, is
that the said body had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of P3,600,
which should have been presented before the ordinary courts.  This claim was filed under Section 24 of the
Social Security Act (R.A. 1161, as amended),
which pro­vides:

“SEC. 24.  Employment
records and reports.? (a) Each employer shall report immediately
to the System the names, ages, civil status, occupations, salaries and
dependents of all his employees who are in his employ and who are or may later
be subject to compulsory coverage: 
Provided, That if an employee sub­ject to compulsory coverage should die
or become sick or disabled without the
System having previously received a
report about him from his
employer, the said employer shall pay to the employee or his legal heirs
damages equivalent to the benefits to which said employee would have been
entitled had his name been reported on time by the employer to the
System.”

It appears that although the deceased Miguel Asiain
had been employed in the Poblete Construction Company
since 1956 and had accomplished SSS Form E-1 (Employees’ Date Record) and
transmitted the same to the said company’s Manila Office, it was never filed
with the Social Security System for the reason, according to the company, that
he refused to have his share of the corresponding monthly contributions
deducted from his salary.  Upon these
facts the company maintains that the deceased was not a member of the System
when he died and hence the adjudica­tion of the claim for damages under Section
24, supra, does not pertain to the Commission but to the courts of justice.

We find the argument untenable. 
There is no ques­tion that the deceased Miguel Asiain
was subject to com­pulsory coverage in the Social Security System.^[1]
It was the duty of the employer to “report immediately to the System”
his name, age, civil status, occupation, salary and dependents.  Compliance with this duty did not depend upon
the employee’s willingness to give his share of the contribution.  Section 24 is mandatory, to such an extent
that if the employee should die or become sick or dis­abled without the report
having been made by the employer, the latter is liable for an amount equivalent
to the benefits to which the employee would have been entitled had such report
been made.  It is true that the provision
uses the word “damages” in referring to the amount that may be
claimed.  But this fact alone does not
mean that the Social Security Commission lacks jurisdiction to award the
same.  Section 5(a) of the Social
Security Act provides that “the filing, determination and settlement of
claims shall be governed by the
rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission;” and the rules and
regulations thus promulgated state that “the effectivity
of membership in the System, as well as the final determination and settle­ment
of claims, shall be vested in the Commission.” The term “claims”
is broad enough to include a claim for “damages” under Section
24.  Otherwise an employer could nullify
the jurisdiction of the Commission by the simple expedient of not making a
report as required by said Sec­tion.  The
collection of the employee’s share is a duty imposed by law, and his
unwillingness to have it deducted from his salary does not excuse the
employer’s failure to make the report aforesaid.  It is precisely in this situation that the
employer is liable, and there is no question as to the amount of such liability
in this case.

The decision of the Social Security Commission is affirmed, and
the writ of preliminary injunction is dis­solved, with costs against herein
petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] SEC. 9. 
Compulsory coverage. – Coverage in the System shall be compulsory
upon all employees between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, inclusive, if
they have been for at least six months in the service of an employer who is a member of the System.  x x x“

  
SEC. 10(a) Compulsory coverage of any employee shall take effect on the
first day of the calendar month following the month when his employer quali­fied
as a member of the System,
provided said employee has rendered at least six months’ service.