17.baliwag trasit v ca.docx

8/17/2019 17.baliwag trasit v ca.docx

1/6

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

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

BL!"G TRNS!T, !NC., petitioner,

vs.

T#E #ON. COURT O$ PPELS N% ROMN MRT!NE&, respondents.

Sta. Maria & Associates for petitioner.

Felimon A. Imazan for respondent Roman Martinez.

PRS, J.:

his is a petition for revie! on certiorari, see"in# the reversal of the decision of the Court of $ppeals

dated %une &, '()', the dispositive portion of !hich reads*

+ERE-ORE, the resolution decision/ of the Social Securit0 Co11ission in SSC

Case No. 2343 is hereb0 set aside and another one entered* orderin# respondent

5ali!a# ransit, Inc. to re1it to the Social Securit0 Co11ission the pre1iu1

contributions for the petitioner for the 0ears '(6) to Ma0 '(72 and fro1 '(74 to

March '(4', inclusive, plus penalties thereon at the rate of 28 per 1onth of delin9uenc0.

!o passen#er bus lines !ith si1ilar buses and si1ilar routes !ere bein# operated b0 fir1 na1es

:5ali!a# ransit; and :5ali!a# ransit, Inc.: 5I/ the herein petitioner. he for1er !as o!ned b0 the

late Pascual ua2?33'6' b0 the Social Securit0

S0ste1 Rollo, p. 77/.

Private respondent clai1in# to be an e1plo0ee of both bus lines !ith one ID Nu1ber, filed a petition!ith the Social Securit0 Co11ision on $u#ust '&, '(46 !hich !as doc"eted as SSC Case No. 2343

to co1pel 5I to re1it to the Social Securit0 private respondent;s SSS Pre1iu1 contributions for the

0ears '(6) to March, '(72 and fro1 '(74 to March '(4'. e alle#ed that he !as e1plo0ed b0

petitioner fro1 '(&4 to '(4' as conductor and later as inspector !ith correspondin# salar0 increases

and that petitioner deducted fro1 his salaries, pre1iu1 contributions, but !hat !as re1itted to the

SSS !as onl0 for a period coverin# %une, '(72 to '(77, at a 1uch lesser a1ount.


2/6

In its ans!er, 5I denied havin# e1plo0ed private respondent Ra1on Martine, '()' Rollo, p. 4'/. In the resolution of Dece1ber 4, '()', the petition !as #iven due

course Rollo, p. )'/. he brief for petitioner?appellant !as filed on March 34, '()3 Rollo, p. )(/


3/6

!hile private respondent filed a 1anifestation and 1otion to be e=cused for not filin# private

respondent;s brief and to be allo!ed to adopt as his ar#u1ents the co11ents he filed on Septe1ber

'(, '()' and his brief !ith the Court of $ppeals Rollo, p. (3/. Said 1anifestation and 1otion !as

noted in the resolution of %une 32, '()3 Rollo, p. (2/ and this case !as sub1itted for deliberation in

the resolution of -ebruar0 2, '()& Rllo, p. (&/.

Petitioners raised the follo!in# assi#n1ent of errors*

I. $ E -INDINBS O- E RESPONDEN ONOR$5E COR O- $PPE$S O E

E--EC $ E VEICES O- E $E P$SC$ $ON +ERE :$$CED: OR

:A$5I: +I PEIIONER, 5$I+$B R$NSI, INC. M$F NO $VE 5EEN SPPORED 5F

S5S$NI$ EVIDENCE.

II. BR$NINB $ E VEICES O- E $E P$SC$ $ON +ERE INDEED

:$$CED: OR :A$5I: +I PEIIONER 5$I+$B R$NSI, INC. EMPOFER? EMPOFEE

RE$IONS M$F NO EGEN C COVER OR INCDE E EMPOFEES O- E $C$

O+NER O- E VEICES $S EMPOFEES $SO O- E ODER O- E CERI-IC$EO- P5IC CONVENIENCE +IC IS IN IS C$SE, PEIIONER 5$I+$B R$NSI, INC.

o!ever, the 1ain issue in this case is !hether or not the issuance b0 the Social Securit0 S0ste1 of

one SSS?ID?Nu1ber to t!o bus lines necessaril0 indicates that one of the1, operates his buses

under the :Aabit S0ste1.:

he ans!er is in the ne#ative.

he :Aabit S0ste1: has been defined b0 the Supre1e Court as an arran#e1ent :!hereb0 a person

!ho has been #ranted a certificate of convenience allo!s another person !ho o!ns 1otor vehicles

to operate under such franchise for a fee.: ita Enterprises, Inc. v. Second Civil Cases Division,I$C, et al., B.R. No. 7&7(2, $pril 34, '()&/. lwphl@itç

he deter1inin# factor, therefore, is the possession of a franchise to operate !hich ne#ates the

e=istence of the :Aabit S0ste1: and not the issuance of one SSS ID Nu1ber for both bus lines fro1

!hich the e=istence of said s0ste1 !as inferred.

In the instant case, the findin#s of the Court of $ppeals are as follo!s*

... It is ver0 obvious fro1 the fore#oin# narration of facts that the late Pascual

ua


4/6

It is !ell settled that the findin#s of facts of the Court of $ppeals ... are conclusive on

the parties and on this Court, unless ... 3/ the inference 1ade is 1anifestl0

1ista"enH ... &/ the @ud#1ent is based on 1isapprehension of factsH ... 7/ the Court

of $ppeals !ent be0ond the issues of the case and its findin#s are contrar0 to the

ad1issions of both appellant appellant and appelleesH 4/ the findin#s of facts of the

Court of $ppeals are contrar0 to those of the trial courtH ... Saca0 v. Sandi#anba0an,B.R. No. 77&(4?(), %ul0 '>, '()7/.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that as testified to, lot onl0 b0 seven 4/ !itnesses presented b0

the petitioner but also b0 the Social Securit0 S0ste1 !itness Man#o!an Macalaba, Cler" I ,of the R

$ Division of the 5oard of ransportation, !ho had access to the records of said office !ith respect

to applications and #rant of franchises of public utilit0 vehicles, that Victoria Vda. de en#co and

Pascual ua


5/6

On the other hand, there is no evidence introducted to sho! that petitioner ever

received salaries fro1 respondent or fro1 Mrs. Victoria Vda. de en#co and neither

had he been under the orders of the latter. he onl0 basis upon !hich petitioner

anchors his clai1 despite his actual e1plo01ent b0 Pascual ua/

It has been unifor1l0 held b0 this Court that it is sufficient that ad1inistrative findin#s of fact are

supported b0 evidence on the record, or stated ne#ativel0, it is sufficient that findin#s of fact are not

sho!n to be unsupported b0 evidence.

he Court has also held further that :in revie!in# ad1inistrative decisions, the revie!inK# court

cannot re?e=a1ine the sufficienc0 of the evidence as if ori#inall0 instituted therein, and receive

additional evidence that !as not sub1itted to the ad1inistrative a#enc0 concerned. he findin#s of

fact 1ust be respected, so lon# as the0 are supported b0 substantial evidence, even if not

over!hel1in# or preponderant.: Police Co11ission v. ood, '34 SCR$ 46) L'()&/. lwphl@itç

hus, the e1plo0er?e1plo0ee relationship bet!een the late Pascual ua


6/6

PREMISES CONCERNED, the decision of respondent Court of $ppeals dated %une &, '()' is

hereb0 REVERSED and SE $SIDE, and the Resolution of the Social Securit0 Co11ission dated

Septe1ber '3, '(4( is hereb0 REINS$ED.

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Chairman) Fernan Alampa! and "#tierrez $r. $$. conc#r.

17.baliwag trasit v ca.docx

Documents