CASE DIGEST : SALVATION ARMY VS SSS GR 230095 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 230095, September 15, 2021 ]

THE SALVATION ARMY, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : The Salvation Army, a non-stock, non-profit religious organization in the Philippines, sought to have its officers’ SSS membership status converted from “employees” to “voluntary or self-employed.” The SSS denied this request, and its denial was affirmed by the Social Security Commission (SSC). Petitioning to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Rule 43 petition, The Salvation Army argued for the change, but the CA dismissed the petition, upholding the SSC’s resolution. The CA held that all elements of an employer-employee relationship existed between the organization and its officers, meaning they were covered by the Social Security Law (R.A. No. 1161, as amended) and entitled to benefits, and that waivers executed by the officers could not unilaterally alter this status. The petition for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.

ISSUE : 1) WON the petitioner's religious ministers are its employees 2) WON in ruling upon such issue, the Court infringes upon the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion

HELD : The petition of The Salvation Army is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact, and findings of fact by administrative agencies, supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are binding. The Court held that the relationship between the petitioner and its officers/ministers is secular in nature, relating to administrative functions rather than religious doctrine, and thus falls within the Court’s review. Applying the four-fold test—selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control—the Court concluded that the petitioner exercises control over its ministers, provides them with allowances equivalent to wages, can terminate their services, and directs their duties, establishing an employer-employee relationship. Coverage under the SSS is mandatory for such employees, and applying the Social Security Law to the petitioner does not violate the constitutional separation of Church and State or the non-establishment clause, as the funds involved are member contributions, not public funds, and the benefits are extended by virtue of employment, not religious status. Consequently, the CA’s decision dismissing the petition and affirming the SSC’s resolutions was affirmed.