Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 164 views

    Pajarillo Vs Sss

    Uploaded by

    gilbert213
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling regarding whether owners of fishing boats and the crew members have an employer-employee relationship that requires coverage under the country's Social Security system. The Court summarizes that the boat owners merely provide the boats and equipment and receive a share of the catch if successful, while the pilots and crew independently operate the boats and keep the remaining shares. There is no obligation for the crew to stay for a set duration or regular schedule. Therefore, the Court finds there is no employer-employee relationship and exempts the boat owners and crew from mandatory Social Security coverage.

    Copyright:

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

    Pajarillo Vs Sss

    Uploaded by

    gilbert213
    164 views3 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling regarding whether owners of fishing boats and the crew members have an employer-employee relationship that requires coverage under the country's Social Security system. The Court summarizes that the boat owners merely provide the boats and equipment and receive a share of the catch if successful, while the pilots and crew independently operate the boats and keep the remaining shares. There is no obligation for the crew to stay for a set duration or regular schedule. Therefore, the Court finds there is no employer-employee relationship and exempts the boat owners and crew from mandatory Social Security coverage.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Pajarillo vs Sss

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling regarding whether owners of fishing boats and the crew members have an employer-employee relationship that requires coverage under the country's Social Security system. The Court summarizes that the boat owners merely provide the boats and equipment and receive a share of the catch if successful, while the pilots and crew independently operate the boats and keep the remaining shares. There is no obligation for the crew to stay for a set duration or regular schedule. Therefore, the Court finds there is no employer-employee relationship and exempts the boat owners and crew from mandatory Social Security coverage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    164 views3 pages

    Pajarillo Vs Sss

    Uploaded by

    gilbert213
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling regarding whether owners of fishing boats and the crew members have an employer-employee relationship that requires coverage under the country's Social Security system. The Court summarizes that the boat owners merely provide the boats and equipment and receive a share of the catch if successful, while the pilots and crew independently operate the boats and keep the remaining shares. There is no obligation for the crew to stay for a set duration or regular schedule. Therefore, the Court finds there is no employer-employee relationship and exempts the boat owners and crew from mandatory Social Security coverage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    G.R. No. L-21930

    August 31, 1966

    AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants,


    vs.
    SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, respondent-appellee.
    Paulino Manongdo for petitioners-appellants.
    Orlando L. Espinas for respondent-appellee.
    BARRERA, J.:
    This is an appeal by Agapita Pajarillo, et al., from the resolution of the Social
    Security Commission, denying their petition to be exempted from coverage of the
    Social Security System.
    There is no controversy as to the facts of this case. Appellants are owners of fishing
    boats being used for fishing at sea, namely:
    Owner

    Name of Vessel

    Agapita Pajarillo

    Bagong Kalayaan

    Basilio Medina

    Stella Maris

    Rosario Relloso

    Villa Florida

    Teofila Campana

    Salenian

    Melicia Totanes

    Nazareno

    Melicia Totanes

    San Pedro

    Ireneo Racelis

    Ricardo

    Salvador Boral

    Villa Rosario

    Cesar King

    Felipa

    Ramon King

    Tacia

    Jaime King

    Aday

    Amelia Reyes

    Queen Mary

    Amelia Reyes

    Nanay

    Teofilo Nasis

    Teresita

    Rosario Reyes

    Charing Uno

    Rosario Reyes

    Charing Dos

    Aurora Sales

    Aurora

    As such property-owners, they enter into agreement 1 with the so-called patrons or
    pilots, whereby the latter take charge of appellants fishing vessels, equipment, and
    gear used for fishing. Once entrusted with the equipment, the pilot "hires" the crew
    to man the boat and secures their provisions. This is usually financed from loans
    obtained in the form of advances from fish dealers, and payable in kind when the
    boat returns with catch from the fishing trip. (pp. 23-24, t.s.n.).
    These fishing trips are not regular. The fishermen go out to the sea only when there
    is no moon or it is not yet very bright. For this reason, even in months of fine
    weather, the most that a boat can make are 18 fishing days every month. These
    men have no regular income. If the trip yields a catch, the proceeds thereof are

    divided into three parts: one part goes to the owner of the boat and equipment; one
    part is set aside to cover expenses like crude oil and for maintenance of the boat,
    and the other one-third is divided among the men, with the pilot getting 3 times the
    share of a crew-member; and the "machinist", who tends or operates the engine of
    the motorized boat, receiving twice the share of a crew-member. (pp. 9, 23, t.s.n.).
    The men (usually 12 for every vessel, including the pilot) are under no obligation to
    stay in one outfit. Sometimes, they join as members of the crew for one night only;
    sometimes two, or three days. Then, they leave and join other outfits. (pp. 18-19,
    t.s.n.). Even the pilot himself is not bound to retain his charge for any definite
    duration. He can return the boat to its owner anytime, if he does not want to
    manage it anymore. (p. 11, t.s.n.). The vessel-owners, appellants in the present
    case, required to register as employers with the Social Security System, filed a joint
    petition with the Social Security Commission, claiming that there exists no
    employer-employee relationship between them and the crew of their fishing vessels,
    and praying that they be exempted from the compulsory coverage of the law. After
    hearing, their petition was denied, the Commission holding that while the services
    of the crew-members are engaged by the pilots, the latter are mere employees or
    agents of the boat-owners. Thus, it is contended, a boat-owner can abolish the
    employment of the crew-members by withdrawing from the pilot the authority to
    take charge of the vessel. Appellants, consequently, were directed to report their
    coverage and that of their respective pilots and crew-members to the Commission
    and to pay the prescribed premiums pursuant to Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the
    Republic Act 1161, as amended. The boat-owners filed the present appeal.
    The only issue raised before the Commission and presented in this appeal is, as
    stated by the Commission itself, "whether under the facts set forth above, there
    exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the crewmembers of their respective fishing boats within the meaning of Republic Act 1161,
    as amended.
    Under the law, an employer is a "person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign,
    who carries on 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. "2 In the case at bar, the pilots are not under the orders
    of the boat-owners as regards their employment. They go out to sea not upon
    direction of the boat-owners, but upon their own volition as to when, how long and
    where to go fishing. Much less do the boat-owners in any way control the crewmembers with whom the former have no relationship whatsoever. These crewmembers simply join every trip for which the pilots allow them, without any
    reference to the owners of the vessel.
    On the other hand, an employee is defined as a "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, where there is an employer-employee
    relationship."3 In the present case, neither the pilots nor the crew-members receive
    compensation from the boat-owners. They only share in their own catch produced
    by their own efforts. There is no showing that outside of their one-third share, the
    boat-owners have anything to do with the distribution of the rest of the catch
    among the pilots and the crew-members. The latter perform no service for the boatowners, but mainly for their own benefit.1wph1.t
    In the undertaking in question, the boat-owners obviously are not responsible for
    the wage, salary, or fee of the pilot and crew-members. Their sole participation in
    the venture is the furnishing or delivery of the equipment used for fishing, after
    which, they merely wait for the boat's return and receive their share in the catch, if
    there is any. For this part, a person who joins the outfit is entitled to a share or
    participation in the fruit of the fishing trip. If it gives no return, the men get nothing.
    It appears to us, therefore, that the undertaking is in the nature of a joint venture,
    with the boat-owner supplying the boat and its equipments, and the pilot and crewmembers contributing the necessary labor, and the parties getting specific shares
    for their respective contributions.
    But, even assuming arguendo that the pilot and crew-members may be treated as
    employees of the boat-owners, they cannot also be made subject to compulsory
    coverage under the Social Security Act. As previously stated, the men are under no

    obligation to remain in the outfit for any definite period. Thus, one can be the crewmember of an outfit for one day and be the member of the crew of another vessel
    the next day. Also, a fishing boat has no regular schedule of fishing trips. It all
    depends on the weather and other natural conditions, and the volition of the pilots
    and crew-men themselves. And, even when a fishing trip is completed, it is no
    assurance of income for the fishermen and the boat-owner as well. Clearly, the
    services rendered by the fishermen are no different from the agricultural labor
    performed by a share or leasehold tenant or worker, which is specifically excluded
    from the definition of "employment",4 and exempted from the coverage of the Social
    Security Act.
    Add to this the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of determining
    the monthly wage of earning of these fishermen for the purpose of fixing the
    amount of their and the supposed employer's contributions, 5 and there is even
    reason to exempt the parties to this kind of undertaking from compulsory
    registration with the Social security System.
    In view of the foregoing considerations, the resolution of the Social Security
    Commission appealed from is hereby set aside, and petitioners-appellants are
    declared exempted from compulsory coverage of the Social Security law. No costs.
    So ordered.

    You might also like