EN BANC
G.R. No. L-26175 July 31, 1970
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, LEOCADIO PAROHINOG HERMENEGILDO RAYMUNDO and ANTANO CASTILLO, respondents.
H. San Juan & L.V. Simbulan for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor
General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor Antonio M. Martinez for respondent Social Security Commission.
Salvador Ibarreta for private respondents.
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur in the main with the opinion of Justice Fernando.
I wish to add that the reduction of respondents-employees' retirement benefits under the private plan for Pension and Death Benefits exclusively maintained by petitioner-employer since 1952 (before the enactment on June 18, 1954 of Republic Act No. 1161, imposing compulsory social security coverage and long before the actual implementation of September 1, 1957 of the Social Security Act after its amendment on June 21, 1957 by Republic Act No. 1792) is a direct result of the mandatory integration of the private benefit plan with the Social Security System plan as imposed by the Act. But over-all, respondents-employees are not prejudiced by such reduction due to the mandatory integration of the private plan with the System's plan under section 9 of the Act and the corollary mandate thereof that "where the employers' contribution to his private plan is more than that required of him in this Act, he shall pay to the System only the contribution required of him and he shall continue his contributions to such private plan less his contribution to the System so that the employers' total contribution to his private benefit plan and to the Social Security System shall be the same as his contribution to his private plan before the compulsory coverage."1 This is evident from the figures given in the main opinion:2
Petitioner Parohinog's retirement pension under the private plan was reduced by P29.99 from P140.93 to P110.94 a month, but adding his social security monthly pension from the System of P51.42, he was actually receiving an increased total pension under the two plans of P162.36 a month.ℒαwρhi৷
Petitioner Castillo's private plan pension was reduced by P14.603 from P49.50 to P34.90 a month, but with his additional social security monthly pension of P25.00, he was actually receiving an increased total pension under the two plans P59.50 a month; and
Petitioner Raymundo's private plan pension was reduced by P28.59 from P120.14 to P91.55 a month, but with his additional social security monthly pension of P 49.02, he was actually receiving an increased total pension under the two plans of P140.57 a month. .
The 1968 case of Rivera vs. San Miguel Corporation, penned by Mr. Justice Castro, correctly laid down the doctrine, and properly applied the clear and unambiguous provision of section 9 of the Act, that the integration of an employer's private pension plan with the Social Security System plan could not legally result in further increasing the employer's total contribution to his private benefit plan and to the Social Security System, in the face of the Act's express mandate that such total contribution to both plans "shall be the same as his contribution to his private plan before the compulsory coverage." The reduction in the private plan pension represents the employer's monthly contributions to the System plan (which is not retained by the employer but is directly paid as the employer's premium contribution to the System) and the sum total of such contribution to the System and of the remaining contribution of the employer to his private plan remains exactly the same as his contribution solely to his private plan before the compulsory coverage, as ordained by section 9 of the Act.
The Rivera is therefore fully controlling in this case. And justly so. It may be really seen 'that petitioner-employer's contribution to its private benefit plan exclusively maintained by it without any contribution from the employees and the resulting private pensions paid by it (even though reduced to a certain extent corresponding to the compulsory premium payment to the System plan) are still much greater than those required of it under the Social Security System. The reduced monthly pensions thus paid by it under its private benefit plan, in the case of Parohinog and Raymundo, amount to double their social security pensions. Nothing in the Act by implication or otherwise would warrant an inequitable construction in the name of abstract social justice that would penalize a progressive and forward-looking employer who has concretely practiced social justice towards his employees by voluntarily and unilaterally adopting and maintaining a private social security plan long before the imposition by law of compulsory social security coverage and require the employer to contribute to the compulsory plan of the System without deducting such contribution from the remaining private plan, which the employer is required to continue maintaining. An analogous example of such an unfair construction would be to require a non-agricultural employer voluntarily paying an above-minimum mum daily wage of P10.00 to his employees without waiting for the passage of the recently enacted increased minimum wage law fixing a minimum daily wage of P8.00 from P6.00, to still pay the increased differential of P2.00 besides the above-minimum daily wage of P10.00 already being paid by the employer.
The employer who has without compulsion of law taken the lead in complying with the spirit of the Constitutions" mandate to promote social justice and in providing for social security against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death and thus insuring within his capabilities the well-being and economic security of his employees' should not be inflicted the penalty of having to bear a greater economic burden than that which he voluntarily assumed when he adopted his private plan, which is more than that required of him under the Act, as indicated in Rivera. The Social Security Act recognizes this in two of its provisos in section 9 thereof: (1) the second proviso "that private plans which are existing and in force at the time of compulsory coverage shall be integrated with the plan of the System in such a way that where the employer's contribution to his private plan is more. than that required of him in this Act, he shall pay to the System only the contribution required of him and he shall continue his contributions to such private plan less his contribution to the System ...," such that where his contribution to his private plan is less than that required of him in the Act, the private plan is absolutely integrated, or more accurately stated, merged into the System, and is discontinued after due notice to the employees;5 and (2) the fourth proviso "that the private benefit plan which the employer shall continue for his employees shall remain under the employer's management and control unless there is an existing agreement to the contrary."
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Castro and Villamor, JJ., as clarified by the concurrence of Mr. Justice Teehankee, concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs with Justice Teehankee's opinion.
Footnotes
1 Emphasis supplied.
2 At p. 3.
3 2-centavo error adjusted from P14.58 as quoted in the main opinion, to reconcile the principal figures given therein.
4 See Machuca Tile Co., Inc. vs. SSS, L-24883, Oct. 31, 1969.
5 See Resolutions of SSS, cited in 3 Montemayor, 3rd Ed., 630.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
