10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

No. L­15045. January 20, 1961.

IN RE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE

BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, petitioner­
appellant, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION,
respondent­appellee.

Social security; Scope of coverage.—The coverage of the Social

Security Law is predicated on the existence of an employer­
employee relationship of more or less permanent nature and
extends to employment of all kinds except those expressly
excluded.

Statutes; Ejusdem generis.—The rule of ejusdem generis

applies only where there is uncertainty. It is not controlling where
there the plain purpose and intent of the lawmaking body would
thereby be hindered and defeated.

11

VOL. 1, JANUARY 20, 1961 11

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security

Commission

Same; Social security; "Employer" includes charitable and

religious organizations.—The rule of ejusdem generis does not
apply to the definition of the term "employer" in the Social
Security Law. That definition is sufficiently comprehensive as to
include religious and charitable institutions or entities, not

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 1/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

organized for profit. It includes the Catholic Charities and all

religious and charitable institutions and organizations directly or
indirectly operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.

Same; Statutes; Effect of exception and amendment.—The

inclusion of religious and charitable institutions, not organized for
profit, within the definition of the term "employer" in the Social
Security Law is shown by the circumstance that said institutions
are not included in the exception contained in said definition and
by the fact that, while in the original law, services performed for
religious and charitable institutions were expressly excluded from
the coverage of the law, in the amendment, that portion of the law
was deleted.

Same; Social Security Law and Industrial Peace Act

contrasted.—The rule, that the Industrial Peace Act applies only
to industry and occupation for purposes of profit and gain, is not
applicable to the Social Security Law because the Industrial
Peace Act expressly limits its application to commercial,
industrial or agricultural establishments or enterprises.

Constitutional law; Social Security System involves private

funds.—The inclusion of religious organizations within the
coverage of the Social Security Law does not violate the
constitutional prohibition against the application of public funds
for the use, benefit or support of any priest employed by a
religious organization. The funds contributed to the Social
Security System are not public funds but funds belonging to the
members which are merely held in trust by the Government. Even
assuming that said funds are impressed with a public character,
nevertheless, their payment as retirement, death or disability
benefits would not violate the said constitutional prohibition since
such payment would be made to the priest, not because he is a
priest but because he is an employee.

Religious organizations; Freedom to disseminate religious

information; Social security; Purpose; Constitutional mandate.
—The inclusion of religious organizations within the coverage of
the Social Security Law would not impair their right to
disseminate religious information. Their monthly contributions,
together with the employees' contributions, are intended for the
protection of said employees against the hazards of disability,
sickness, old age and death, This is in line with the constitu­

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 2/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security

Commission

tional mandate to promote social justice to insure the wellbeing

and economic security of all the people.

APPEAL from resolutions of the Social Security

Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Feria, Manglapus & Associates for petitioner­
appellant.
          Legal Staff, Social Security System and Solicitor
General for respondent­appellee.

GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

On September 1, 1958, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of

Manila, thru counsel, filed with the Social Security
Commission a request that "Catholic Charities, and all
religious and charitable institutions and/or organizations,
which. are directly or indirectly, wholly or partially,
operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila," be
exempted from compulsory coverage of Republic Act No.
1161, as amended, otherwise known as the Social Security
Law of 1954. The request was based on the claim that the
said Act is a labor law and does not cover religious and
charitable institutions but is limited to businesses and
activities organized for profit. Acting upon the
recommendation of its Legal Staff, the Social Security
Commission in its Resolution No. 572, series of 1958,
denied the request, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Manila, reiterating its arguments and raising
constitutional objections, requested for reconsideration of
the resolution. The request, however, was denied by the
Commission in its Resolution No. 767, series of 1958;
hence, this appeal taken in pursuance of section 5(c) of
Republic Act No. 1161, as amended.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 3/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

Section 9 of the Social Security Law, as amended,

provides that coverage "in the System shall be compulsory
upon all members between the age 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
13

VOL. 1, JANUARY 20, 1961 13

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

System, Provided, that the Commission may not compel

any employer to become member of the System unless he
shall have been in operation for at least two years and has
at the time of admission, if admitted for membership
during the first year of the System's operation at least fifty
employees, and if admitted for membership the following
year of operation and thereafter, at least six em­ployees x x
x." The term "employer" as used in the law is defined as
"any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who
carries in the Philippines any trade, business, industry,
undertaking, or activity of any kind and uses the services
of another person who is under his orders as regards the
employment, except the Government and any of its political
subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including
corporations owned or controlled by the Government" (par.
[c], sec. 8), while an "employee" refers to "any person who
performs services for an 'employer' in which either or both
mental and physical efforts are used and who receives
compensation for such services" (par. [d], sec. 8).
"Employment", according to paragraph [j] of said section 8,
covers any service performed by an employer except those
expressly enumerated thereunder, like employment under
the Government, or any of its political subdivisions,
branches or instrumentalities including corporations
owned and controlled by the Government,. domestic service
in a private home, employment purely casual, etc.
From the above legal provisions, it is apparent that the
coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an employer­employee relationship of more or
less permanent nature and extends to employment of all
kinds except those expressly excluded.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 4/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

Appellant contends that the term "employer" as defined

in the law should—following the principle of ejusdem
generis—be limited to those who carry on "undertakings or
activities which have the element of profit or gain, or which
are pursued for profit or gain," because the phrase "activity
of any kind" in the definition is preceded by the words "any
trade, business, industry, undertaking." The contention
cannot be sustained. The
14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

rule ejusdem generis applies only where there is

uncertainty. It is not controlling where the plain purpose
and intent of the Legislature would thereby be hindered
and defeated. (Grosjean vs. American Paints Works [La],
160 So. 449). In the case at bar, the definition of the term
"employer" is, we think, sufficiently comprehensive as to
include religious and charitable institutions or entities not
organized for profit, like herein appellant, within its
meaning. This is made more evident by the fact that it
contains an exception in which said institutions or entities
are not included. And, certainly, had the Legislature really
intended to limit the operation of the law to entities
organized for profit or gain, it would not have defined an
"employer" in such a way as to include the Government and
yet make an express exception of it.
It is significant to note that when Republic Act No. 1161
was enacted, services performed in the employ of
institutions organized for religious or charitable purposes
were by express provisions of said Act excluded from
coverage thereof (sec. 8, par. [j], subpars. 7 and 8). That
portion of the law, however, has been deleted by express
provision of Republic Act No. 1792, which took effect in
1957. This is clear indication that the Legislature intended
to include charitable and religious institutions within the
scope of the law.
In support of its contention that the Social SeCurity Law
was intended to cover only employment for profit or gain,
appellant also cites the discussions of the Senate, portions

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 5/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

of which were quoted in its brief. There is, however,

nothing whatsoever in those discussions touching upon the
question of whether the law should be limited to
organizations for profit or gain. Of course, the said
discussions dwelt at length upon the need of a law to meet
the problems of industrializing society and upon the plight
of an employer who fails to make a profit. But this is
readily explained by the fact that the majority of those to
be affected by the operation of the law are corporations and
industries which are established primarily for profit or
gain.

15

VOL. 1, JANUARY 20, 1961 15

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

Appellant further argues that the Social Security Law is a

labor law and, consequently, following the rule laid down in
the case of Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos 1
(G.R.
No. L­10091, January 29, 1958) and other cases , applies
only to industry and occupation for purposes of profit and
gain. The cases cited, however, are not in point, for the
reason that the law therein involved expressly limits its
application either to commercial, industrial, or agricultural
establishments, or enterprises.
Upon the other hand, the Social Security Law was
enacted pursuant to the "policy of the Republic of the
Philippines to develop, establish gradually and perfect a
social security system which shall be suitable to the needs
of the people throughout the Philippines and shall provide
protection to employees against the hazards of disability,
sickness, old age and death." (Sec. 2, Republic Act No.
1161, as amended.) Such enactment is a legitimate exercise
of the police power. It affords protection to labor, especially
to working women and minors, and is in full accord with
the constitutional provisions on the "promotion of social
justice to insure the well­being and economic security of all
the people." Being in fact a social legislation, compatible
with the policy of the Church to ameliorate living
conditions of the working class, appellant cannot
arbitrarily delimit the extent of its provisions to relations

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 6/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

between capital and labor in industry and agriculture.

There is no merit in the claim that the inclusion of
religious organizations under the coverage of the Social
Security Law violates the constitutional prohibition against
the application of public funds for the use, benefit or
support of any priest who might be employed by appellant.
The funds contributed to the System created by

_______________

1 UST Hospital Employees Association vs. UST Hospital, G.R. No. L­

6988, May 24, 1954; San Beda College vs. National Labor Union, G.R. No.
L­7649, October 29, 1955; Quezon Institute vs. Velasco & Quezon Institute
vs. Parazo, G.R. Nos. L7742­43, November 23, 1955.

16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

the law are not public funds, but funds belonging to the
members which are merely held in trust by the
Government. At any rate, assuming­ that said funds are
impressed with the character of public funds, their
payment as retirement death or disability benefits would
not constitute a violation of the cited provisions of the
Constitution, since such payment shall be made to the
priest not because he is a priest but because he is an
employee.
Neither may it be validly argued that the enforcement of
the Social Security Law impairs appellant's right to
disseminate religious information. All that is required of
appellant is to make monthly contributions to the System
for covered employees in its employ. These contributions,
contrary to appellant's contention, are not "in the nature of
taxes on employment." Together with the contributions
imposed upon the employees and the Government, they are
intended for the protection of said employees against the
hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line
with the constitutional mandate to promote social justice to
insure the well­being and economic security of all the
people.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 7/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Resolutions Nos. 572

and 767, series of 1958, of the Social Security Commission
are hereby affirmed. So ordered with costs against
appellant.

     Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Paredes and

Dizon, JJ., concur.
     Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Barrera, JJ., concur
in the result.
     Bengzon, J., reserves his 'vote.

Resolutions affirmed.

Notes.—Section 9 of the Social Security Law, as

amended by Republic Act No. 4857, effective September 1,
1966, provides that "coverage in the System shall be
compulsory upon all employees not over sixty years of age
and their employers".
17

VOL. 1, JANUARY 20, 1961 17

National Fastener Corp. of the Phils. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations

Coverage is determined solely by the existence of an

employer­employee relationship (Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd. vs. Social Security Commission, L­16358, Dec. 28,
1961).
Any dispute regarding coverage is cognizable by the
Social Security Commission (Philippine American Life
Insurance Company vs. Social Security Commission, L­
20383, May 24, 1967 20 Supreme Court Reports Annotated
162).
Temporary and casual employees are covered by the
Social Security Law (Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs.
Social Security System, L­20088, Jan. 22, 1966, 16
Supreme Court Reports Annotated 6).
Membership in the Social Security System is not the
result of a bilateral, consensual agreement where the
rights and obligations of the parties are defined by and
subject to their will. The law requires compulsory coverage
of employers and employees under the system. It is
actually a legal imposition on said employers and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 8/9
10/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001

employees, designed to provide social security to the

workingman. Membership in the Social Security System is
in compliance with a lawful exercise of the police power of
the State, to which the principle of non­impairment of the
obligation of contract is not a proper defense. (Philippine
Blooming Mills Co. vs. Social Security System, L­21223,
Aug. 31, 1966, 17 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 1077).
Where there is no employer­employee relationship, as
when the owners of fishing boats and the members of the
crew are engaged in a joint venture, the Social Security
Law does not apply to the said crew­members (Pajarillo vs.
Social Security System, L­21930, Aug. 31, 1966, 17
Supreme Court Reports Annotated 1014).

—————

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001504b8cf9eab6cb81f6000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR594/?username=Guest 9/9