CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Share

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social
Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

Custom Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

January-1987 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. L-42618 January 7, 1987 - SARMIENTO ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S

COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-45048 January 7, 1987 - BATONG BUHAY GOLD MINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47286 January 7, 1987 - RAMON BORGUILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47915 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REUBEN D. PIMENTEL, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-48297 January 7, 1987 - DIOGENES TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987 - "BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET
AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-55702 January 7, 1987 - JOSEPHINE CRUZ MALOLOS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE
CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-56196 January 7, 1986

RESTITUTA HULGANZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-57493 January 7, 1987 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-63936 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA E. MAGALLANES

G.R. No. L-69579 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO RAMILO

G.R. No. 70099 January 7, 1987 - MODESTA BORCENA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 70569 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL S. MADARANG

G.R. No. 70688 January 7, 1987 - ROMULO J. FUENTEBELLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 71100 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. SANTIAGO

G.R. No. 72892 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO VIRAY

G.R. No. 73211 January 7, 1987 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-27906 January 8, 1987 - CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION v. UNIVERSAL RUBBER
PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-41966 January 8, 1987 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-46960-62 January 8, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO ROJAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-59606 January 8, 1987 - EDMUNDO ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.M. No. R-192-RTJ January 9, 1987 - ARTURO A. ROMERO v. GABRIEL O. VALLE, JR.

G.R. No. L-65048 January 9, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES R. MARCOS

G.R. Nos. L-66939-41 January 10, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-47738 January 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LIMOSNERO

G.R. No. L-56589 January 12, 1987 - JAIME MANLAPAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-63698 January 12, 1987 - CRESENCIANO DIONIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 72141 January 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN L. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74975 January 12, 1987 - TOMASA L. BELGADO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75310 January 16, 1987 - WILFREDO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-27520 January 21, 1987 - GLOBE WIRELESS LTD. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-30937 January 21, 1987 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 70636 January 21, 1987 - E. B. MARCHA TRANSPORT CO., INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-68790 January 23, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO M. LAGRANA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76532 January 26, 1987 - FLOR J. LACANILAO v. JUAN DE LEON

G.R. No. L-60036 January 27, 1987 - INVESTMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 72740 January 27, 1987 - MARCIANO IPAPO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

B.M. No. 135 January 29, 1987 - IN RE: SOCORRO KE. LADRERA

G.R. No. L-45214 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. L-48065 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO TRAYA

G.R. No. L-59180 January 29, 1987 - CLEMENTINO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SIBAGAT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-59679 January 29, 1987 - TEODULO M. PALMA, SR. v. CARLOS O. FORTICH, ET AL.

G.R. No. 70255 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILBUR E. ABOGA

G.R. No. 71272 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY TAMBA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 71391 January 29, 1987 - CELSA PUNCIA ANCHUELO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 72841 January 29, 1987 - PROVINCE OF CEBU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-51193 January 30, 1987 - EMILIO ZOZOBRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-52221 January 30, 1987 - KANEO SOTOYAMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. L-52872-52997 January 30, 1987 - ROLANDO R. MANGUBAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-57893 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO OBENQUE

G.R. No. L-69123 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODANTE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-69803 January 30, 1987 - CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, ET AL. v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 70987 January 30, 1987 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 72307 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO PILAPIL

G.R. No. 72353 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO C. CERELEGIA

G.R. No. 72899 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCO F. POLO

A.M. No. 86-8-10603-RTC January 31, 1987 - IN RE: ESTHER N. BANS

G.R. Nos. L-40729-30 January 31, 1987 - BERNARDO C. CARBONEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-48352 January 31, 1987 - ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. L-49167-70 January 31, 1987 - TEODORO CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-61773 January 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO PARAS

G.R. No. L-68687 January 31, 1987 - FRANCISCO CIMAFRANCA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 71370 January 31, 1987 - SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC, ET AL. v. SYLVIA P. MONTES

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > January 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. L-57493
January 7, 1987 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

G.R. No. L-57493 January 7, 1987 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-57493. January 7, 1987.]

BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ROMAN MARTINEZ,
Respondents.

Sta. Maria & Associates for Petitioner.

Felimon Almazan for respondent Roman Martinez.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; TRANSPORTATION; "KABIT SYSTEM," DETERMINING FACTOR. — The "Kabit System"
has been defined by the Supreme Court as an arrangement "whereby a person who has been granted a
certificate of convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such
franchise for a fee." (Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. Second Civil Cases Division, IAC, Et Al., G.R. No. 64693, April
27, 1984). The determining factor, therefore, is the possession of a franchise to operate which negates
the existence of the "Kabit System" and not the issuance of one SSS ID Number for both bus lines from
which the existence of said system was inferred.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONCLUSIVE
ON THE PARTIES AND ON THIS COURT; EXCEPTIONS. — "It is well settled that the findings of facts of the
Court of Appeals . . . are conclusive on the parties and on this Court, unless: . . . (2) the inference made is
manifestly mistaken; . . . (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; . . . (6) the Court of
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; . . ." (Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 66497-98, July 10, 1986).

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS; FINDINGS OF FACTS SUPPORTED BY

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST BE RESPECTED. — It has been uniformly held by this Court that it is
sufficient that administrative findings of fact are supported by evidence on the record, or stated
negatively, it is sufficient that findings of fact are not shown to be unsupported by evidence. The Court
has also held further that "in reviewing administrative decisions, the reviewing court cannot re-examine
the sufficiency of the evidence as if originally instituted therein, and receive additional evidence that
was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned. The findings of fact must be respected, so
long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant."cralaw
virtua1aw library

4. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION; CLAIM FILED AFTER
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS IN INSTANT CASE HAS PRESCRIBED. — The employer-employee relationship
between the late Pascual Tuazon and herein private respondent, having been established, the
remittance of SSS contributions of the latter, is the responsibility of his employer Tuazon, regardless of
the existence or non-existence of the "Kabit System." Moreover, private respondent having allowed
seventeen (17) years to elapse before filing his petition with the Social Security System, has undoubtedly
slept on his rights and his cause of action has already prescribed under Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code
(Central Azucarrera del Davao v. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 296 [1985]; applied by analogy).

DECISION

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated June 4, 1981, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the resolution (decision) of the Social Security Commission in SSC Case No. 3272 is hereby
set aside and another one entered: ordering respondent Baliwag Transit, Inc. to remit to the Social
Security Commission the premium contributions for the petitioner for the years 1958 to May 1963 and
from 1967 to March 1971, inclusive, plus penalties thereon at the rate of 3% per month of
delinquency."cralaw virtua1aw library

Two passenger bus lines with similar buses and similar routes were being operated by firm names
"Baliwag Transit" and "Baliwag Transit, Inc." (BTI) the herein petitioner. The former was owned by the
late Pascual Tuazon who continued to operate it until his death on January 26, 1972, while the latter
was owned by petitioner corporation, incorporated in the year 1968 and existing until the present time.
Both bus lines operate under different grants of franchises by the Public Service Commission (Brief for
Petitioner, p. 11), but were issued only one ID Number 03-22151 by the Social Security System (Rollo, p.
66).

Private respondent claiming to be an employee of both bus lines with one ID Number, filed a petition
with the Social Security Commission on August 14, 1975 which was docketed as SSC Case No. 3272 to
compel BTI to remit to the Social Security System private respondent’s SSS Premium contributions for
the years 1958 to March, 1963 and from 1967 to March, 1971. He alleged that he was employed by
petitioner from 1947 to 1971 as conductor and later as inspector with corresponding salary increases
and that petitioner deducted from his salaries, premium contributions, but what was remitted to the SSS
was only for a period covering June, 1963 to 1966, at a much lesser amount.
In its answer, BTI denied having employed private respondent Ramon Martinez, the truth being that he
was employed by Pascual Tuazon who since 1948 owned and operated buses under the trade name
Baliwag Transit which were separate and distinct from the buses operated by petitioner company
owned by Mrs. Victoria Vda. de Tengco. Both bus lines had different offices, different maintenance and
repair shops, garages, books of account, and managers. The employment of private respondent lasted
until 1971 when his employer Pascual Tuazon became bankrupt. It was the latter which deducted from
private respondent the amount corresponding to his SSS contributions for the years in question but
allegedly did not remit the same. Finally, herein petitioner BTI claims that private respondent allowed 17
years to elapse and at a time when Pascual Tuazon was already dead before filing the subject petition
with the Social Security Commission. (Rollo, p. 18).

After trial on the merits, the Social Security Commission on September 12, 1979, entered a resolution in
SSC Case No. 3272, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds and so holds that there existed no employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner and respondent as would warrant further remittance of SSS
contributions for and in behalf of petitioner Roman Martinez.

"Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal, the Court of Appeals finding- that the late Pascual Tuazon operated his buses under the
"Kabit" System, reversed and set aside the foregoing resolution as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the resolution (decision) of the Social Security Commission in SSC Case No. 3272 is hereby
set aside and another one entered ordering respondent Baliwag Transit, Inc. to remit to the Social
Security Commission the premium contributions for the petitioner for the years 1958 to May 1963 and
from 1967 to March 1971, inclusive, plus penalties thereon at the rate of 3% per month of delinquency;

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Herein petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with respondent Court of Appeals, which Motion
was later denied.
Hence, this petition.

In the resolution of August 26, 1981 of the Second Division of this Court, respondents were required to
comment (Rollo, p. 64) which was complied with on September 21, 1981 (Rollo, pp. 65-71). On October
5, 1981, petitioner filed its Reply (Rollo, pp. 73-75) in compliance with the resolution of September 30,
1981 (Rollo, p. 71). In the resolution of December 7, 1981, the petition was given due course (Rollo, p.
81). The brief for petitioner-appellant was filed on March 27, 1982 (Rollo, p. 89) while private
respondent filed a manifestation and motion to be excused for not filing private respondent’s brief and
to be allowed to adopt as his arguments the comments he filed on September 19, 1981 and his brief
with the Court of Appeals (Rollo, p. 92). Said manifestation and motion was noted in the resolution of
June 23, 1982 (Rollo, p. 93) and this case was submitted for deliberation in the resolution of February 3,
1984 (Rollo, p. 94).

Petitioners raised the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE VEHICLES OF THE LATE PASCUAL TUAZON WERE "ATTACHED" OR "KABIT" WITH PETITIONER,
BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II. GRANTING THAT THE VEHICLES OF THE LATE PASCUAL TUAZON WERE INDEED "ATTACHED" OR
"KABIT" WITH PETITIONER BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MAY NOT EXTENT
TO COVER OR INCLUDE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE VEHICLES AS EMPLOYEES ALSO
OF THE HOLDER OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE WHICH IS IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER
BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC.

However, the main issue in this case is whether or not the issuance by the Social Security System of one
SSS-ID-Number to two bus lines necessarily indicates that one of them, operates his buses under the
"Kabit System."cralaw virtua1aw library

The answer is in the negative.

The "Kabit System" has been defined by the Supreme Court as an arrangement "whereby a person who
has been granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to
operate under such franchise for a fee." (Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. Second Civil Cases Division, IAC, Et Al.,
G.R. No. 64693, April 27, 1984).
The determining factor, therefore, is the possession of a franchise to operate which negates the
existence of the "Kabit System" and not the issuance of one SSS ID Number for both bus lines from
which the existence of said system was inferred.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In the instant case, the findings of the Court of Appeals are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . It is very obvious from the foregoing narration of facts that the late Pascual Tuazon, during the time
material to this case, operated his houses under the "kabit" system; that is, while actually he was the
owner and operator of public utility buses, maintaining his own drivers, conductors, inspectors and
other employees, his buses were not registered with the Public Service Commission (now the Bureau of
Land Transportation) in his own name. Instead, his buses were absorbed and registered as owned and
operated by the "Baliwag Transit," which was the firm name owned and used by his niece," Victoria Vda.
de Tengco."cralaw virtua1aw library

"It is well settled that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals . . . are conclusive on the parties and
on this Court, unless: . . . (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; . . . (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; . . . (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of facts of the
Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; . . ." (Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 66497-
98, July 10, 1986).

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that as testified to, not only by seven (7) witnesses presented by the
petitioner but also by the Social Security System witness Mangowan Macalaba, Clerk I, of the R & A
Division of the Board of Transportation, who had access to the records of said office with respect to
applications and grant of franchises of public utility vehicles, that Victoria Vda. de Tengco and Pascual
Tuazon were granted separate franchises to operate public utility buses, under Cases Nos. 15904,
114913, 11564, 103366, 64157 and 65894 for the former and Case No. 69-4592 and Case No. 697775 for
the latter, both operating between Manila and Baliuag routes. However, the franchises of Pascual
Tuazon were cancelled on December 16, 1971 and May 14, 1972 respectively (Rollo, p. 22), when the
latter terminated his operation.

It is thus evident that both bus lines operated under their own franchises but opted to retain the firm
name "Baliwag Transit" with slight modification, by the inclusion of the word "Inc." in the case of herein
petitioner, obviously to take advantage of the goodwill such firm name enjoys with the riding public.
Conversely, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the late Pascual Tuazon, during the time
material to this case operated his buses under the "Kabit System" on the ground that while he was
actually the owner and operator, his buses were not registered with the Public Service Commission (now
the Bureau of Land Transportation) in his own name, is not supported by the records. Much less can it
be said that there is an analogy between the case at bar and the cited case of Doligosa, Et. Al. v.
Decolongon, Et. Al. (3 CA Nos. 1135,1142-43) to the extent that Baliwag Transit, Inc. being the ostensible
operator of the buses actually owned by Pascual Tuazon, should be held liable for the contributions
collected or ought to be collected from private respondent (Rollo, pp. 53-54), presumably to discourage
the proliferating "Kabit System" in public utility vehicles.

While it is admitted that petitioner was the one who remitted the SSS premiums of private respondent,
it has also been established by testimonies of witnesses that such arrangement was done purposely to
accommodate the request of the late Pascual Tuazon, the uncle of Victoria Vda. de Tengco and the
money came from him. On the other hand, there is no reason why such testimonies should not be given
credence as the records fail to show that said witnesses have any motive or reason to falsify or perjure
their testimonies (Rollo, pp. 23-24).

Moreover, the Social Security Commission after several hearings had been conducted, arrived at the
following conclusion:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

"It was established during the hearings that petitioner Roman Martinez was employed by, worked for
and took orders from Pascual Tuazon and was authorized to get ‘vales’ from the conductors of the
trucks of Mr. Tuazon. This was admitted got ‘vales’ from the buses of Pascual Tuazon (TSN pp. 24-25,
May 7, 1976 and Exhibits "3" to "49").

"On the other hand, there is no evidence introducted to show that petitioner ever received salaries from
respondent or from Mrs. Victoria Vda. de Tengco and neither had he been under the orders of the
latter. The only basis upon which petitioner anchors his claim despite his actual employment by Pascual
Tuazon was the use by the latter of the trade name, Baliwag Transit, in the operation of his (Mr.
Tuazon’s) own buses which the latter had every reason to do since he laboriously helped and organized
said firm until it gained cognizance by the public.

"It is, therefore, clear that even long before the incorporation of the Baliwag Transit in 1968 petitioner
was already an employee of the late Pascual Tuazon who despite having separate office, employees and
buses which were operated under the line of the Baliwag Transit did not report him for coverage to the
SSS. Sadly enough, petitioner who claims to be an employee of the respondent did not refute, by way of
submitting rebuttal evidence, the testimonies given by respondent’s witnesses that he was an employee
of the late Pascual Tuazon and not of said respondent or of Mrs. Victoria Tuazon and not of said
respondent or of Mr. Victoria Vda. de Tengco. Indeed, there is a reasonable basis to believe that he
would not attempt to do so if only to be consistent with his stand when he filed a case before the
National Labor Relations Commission, a claim against both the late Pascual Tuazon and the Respondent.
He is now concentrating his action against the respondent in view of the death of Pascual Tuazon who
during his lifetime sold his trucks and became bankrupt Exhibit "2") —Resolution, September 14, 1979,
pp. 29-31)." (Rollo, pp. 28-30)

It has been uniformly held by this Court that it is sufficient that administrative findings of fact are
supported by evidence on the record, or stated negatively, it is sufficient that findings of fact are not
shown to be unsupported by evidence.cralawnad

The Court has also held further that "in reviewing administrative decisions, the reviewing court cannot
re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence as if originally instituted therein, and receive additional
evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned. The findings of fact must be
respected, so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or
preponderant." (Police Commission v. Lood, 127 SCRA 758 [1984].

Thus, the employer-employee relationship between the late Pascual Tuazon and herein private
respondent, having been established, the remittance of SSS contributions of the latter, is the
responsibility of his employer Tuazon, regardless of the existence or non-existence of the "Kabit
System."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, private respondent having allowed seventeen (17) years to elapse before filing his petition
with the Social Security System, has undoubtedly slept on his rights and his cause of action has already
prescribed under Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code (Central Azucarrera del Davao v. Court of Appeals, 137
SCRA 296 [1985]; applied by analogy).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated June 4, 1981 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Resolution of the Social Security Commission dated September 12,
1979 is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-57493 January 7, 1987 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923
1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952
1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981
1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

cralaw

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

RED