Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    United Christian Missionary Society, Et Al. vs. SSC

    Uploaded by

    AweGooseTree
    The United Christian Missionary Society and others filed a petition seeking condonation of assessed penalties for delayed social security premium remittances totaling 69,446.42 pesos from 1958 to 1963. The Social Security Commission denied the petition, arguing it had no power to condone. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding nothing in the law granting the SSC power to legally condone delayed premium payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United Christian Missionary Society, Et Al. vs. SSC

    Uploaded by

    AweGooseTree
    121 views1 page
    The United Christian Missionary Society and others filed a petition seeking condonation of assessed penalties for delayed social security premium remittances totaling 69,446.42 pesos from 1958 to 1963. The Social Security Commission denied the petition, arguing it had no power to condone. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding nothing in the law granting the SSC power to legally condone delayed premium payments.

    Original Description:

    12. United Christian Missionary Society, Et Al. vs. SSC

    Original Title

    12. United Christian Missionary Society, Et Al. vs. SSC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United Christian Missionary Society and others filed a petition seeking condonation of assessed penalties for delayed social security premium remittances totaling 69,446.42 pesos from 1958 to 1963. The Social Security Commission denied the petition, arguing it had no power to condone. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding nothing in the law granting the SSC power to legally condone delayed premium payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    United Christian Missionary Society, Et Al. vs. SSC

    Uploaded by

    AweGooseTree
    The United Christian Missionary Society and others filed a petition seeking condonation of assessed penalties for delayed social security premium remittances totaling 69,446.42 pesos from 1958 to 1963. The Social Security Commission denied the petition, arguing it had no power to condone. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding nothing in the law granting the SSC power to legally condone delayed premium payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sebastian, Ethan Joshua S.

    Social Security Act of 2018


    Agrarian Laws and Social Legislation Social Security Act of 2018
    Case Digest United Christian Missionary Society, et al. v
    SSC

    United Christian Missionary Society, et al. vs. SSC,


    GR No. L-15045, 20 January 1961

    Facts:

    Petitioners commendably desisted from further contesting the issue on coverage concerning
    American missionaries, manifesting that they had adopted a policy of cooperation with the
    Philippine authorities in its program of social amelioration, with which they are in complete
    accord. They instead filed their consolidated amended petition dated May 7, 1966, praying for
    condonation of assessed penalties against them for delayed social security premium
    remittances in the aggregate amount of P69,446.42 for the period from September, 1958 to
    September, 1963.

    SSC however denied such petition since they argued that they have no power to condone.

    Issue:
    WON SSC had the power to condone

    Ruling:
    No,
    The pertinent portion of Section 22(a) of the Social Security Act provides:

    "SEC. 22. Remittance of premiums. — (a) The contributions imposed in the preceding
    sections shall be remitted to the System within the first seven days of each calendar
    month following the month for which they are applicable or within such time as the
    Commission may prescribe. "Every employer required to deduct and to remit such
    contributions shall be liable for their payment and if any contribution is not paid to the
    system, as herein prescribed, he shall pay besides the contribution a penalty thereon of
    three per centum per month from the date the contribution falls due until paid . . ."

    The court held that there was nothing in the law that would grant SSC power to legally condone
    such delayed premium payments.

    Disposition:

    ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to


    costs.

    You might also like