ANIÑON, Petitioner vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent BERSAMIN, C.J.

: April
10, 2019; G.R. No. 190410

FACTS: Private petitioner, Aniñon, had only been in government service for 12 years, and his service had
been intermittent and not continuous. In 1989, as the result of his voluntary separation, having worked
abroad, from the service prior to obtaining the necessary eligibility, he received from the GSIS an
amount of ₱16,345.12 representing the refund of his premiums, to which he was entitled under Section
11(d) of C.A. No. 186, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)No. 660 (Return of Premiums). On August 1996,
Aniñon was reinstated in the civil service. GSIS issued Policy and Procedural Guidelines (PPG) No. 183-06
on January 3, 2006, which was published on January 28, 2006, whereby the GSIS clarified that a
reinstated employee should be allowed full credit of previous services provided he/she meanwhile
complied with the refund requirement, that is, to refund all retirement benefits received from his/her
previous retirement or separation from service within 30 days from the publication of PPG No. 183-06.
Petitioner, in his letter, expressed his intention to retire on March 24, 2007, his 63rd birthday. For the
purpose, he requested the full credit of his 12-year government service rendered prior to his
reinstatement in 1996. However, having just learned about the refund requirement, he requested to be
exempt from the coverage of PPG No. 183-06, specifically asking that he be allowed to belatedly refund
the premiums returned in 1989, or, alternatively, to have the amount of the premiums deducted from his
future retirement proceeds by way of offsetting. The letter was denied by the then VP of Social
Operations Office of the GSIS.

ISSUE: Whether or not he should be exempt from the application of PPG 183-06 pursuant to the
principle of liberal construction of social legislation and retirement laws in favor of the retiree.

RULING: Yes. Petitioner should be exempt from the application of PPG 183-06 as NO retirement benefits
was paid pertaining to Aniñon 12-year period of service but was only return of his premiums. Section
11(d) of C.A. No. 186, the law then in force, entitled him to the refund of his own premiums and
voluntary deposits, to wit: Section 11. (a) x x x; (d) Upon dismissal for cause or on voluntary separation,
he shall be entitled only to his own premiums and voluntary deposits, if any, plus interest of three per
centum per annum, compounded monthly. Aniñon was voluntarily separated from service in 1989. He
did not retire or receive retirement benefits in as much as he did not possess the required eligibility at
that time. Thus, when he collected the sum of his premiums or personal contributions, he received only
the return of his premiums. However, this should not be construed as the ipso facto inclusion of his
previous service in the computation of his creditable service. In order that his previous service may be
appreciated for purposes of computing creditable service, Aniñon should pay back to the GSIS the
premiums returned to him in 1989. Fairness demands that the corresponding premiums be paid for his
prior years of service to enable him to receive retirement benefits pertaining to that period.

In addition, GSIS cannot deprive Aniñon of the opportunity to make good his obligation through the
offsetting method, which the law allowed under the particular circumstances of his case. This
interpretation of the pertinent GSIS rules and regulations is supported by the basic principle that social
legislation, such as retirement laws, must be liberally construed in the retiree-beneficiary's favor. These
laws (C.A. No. 186, P.D.No. 1146, and R.A. No. 8291 and its Implementing Rules) in a way that protects
and enhances a government employee's quality of life after devoting his prime years to the civil service.
Sss vs ca and Conchita ayalde

The essential elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power of control with
regard to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, with the power of control
being the most determinative factor. Facts: Margarita Tana, widow of the late Ignacio Tana, Sr., became
aware of the fact that her husband's employer, Conchita Ayalde, never reported him for Social Security
System (SSS) coverage. Margarita filed a petition before the Social Security Commission and prayed that
Ayalde be ordered to pay the SSS premium contributions and that SSS should grant her the funeral and
pension benefits due her. The SSS, in a petition-in-intervention, revealed that Ayalde was never
registered as a member-employer of the SSS, and consequently, Tana, Sr. was never registered as
member-employee. Respondent Ayalde belied the allegation that Tana, Sr. was her employee, admitting
only that he was hired intermittently as an independent contractor to plow, harrow, or burrow the
plantation she owned and rented. After hearing both parties, the Social Security Commission held that
Tana, Sr. had been employed continuously from January 1961 to March 1979 with a salary based on the
minimum wage prevailing during his employment. Not having reported the petitioner's husband for
coverage with the SSS, respondent Conchita Ayalde was made liable to pay damages equivalent to the
death benefits and funeral expenses of Tana, Sr. Not satisfied with the Commission's ruling, Ayalde
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of Conchita Ayalde
and dismissed the claim of Margarita Tana. The SSS, as intervenor-appellee, filed a motion for
reconsideration, but was denied.

Issue: Whether or not an agricultural laborer who was hired on "pakyaw" basis can be considered an
employee entitled to compulsory coverage and corresponding benefits under the Social Security Law.

Held: The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the resolution
of the Social Security Commission was reinstated. There was no shred of evidence to show that Tana was
only a seasonal worker. All witnesses, including Ayalde, testi8ed that Tana and his family resided in the
plantation. The only logical explanation for this set up was that Tana was working for most part of the
year exclusively for Ayalde. A closer scrutiny of the records revealed that while Ayalde may not have
directly imposed on Tana the manner and methods to follow in performing his tasks, she did exercise
control through her overseer. Under the circumstances, the relationship between Ayalde and Tana has
more of the attributes of employer-employee than that of an independent contractor hired to perform a
specific project.