Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs SSS

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/25/2019 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs SSS

    1/1

    Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security Commission

    Facts:

    The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila led a request ith Social Security

    Commission to e!empt from compulsory covera"e of RA ##$# %Social

    Security &a of #'()* the catholic charities and all reli"ious and charitable

    institutions and or"ani+ations hich are directly or indirectly run and

    operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.

    The request as based on the claim that the act pertains to a labor act hich

    does not cover reli"ious and charitable institution hence conned to business

    and proprietary activities.

    They contends that the term ,employer, as dened in the la should -

    folloin" the principle ofejusdem generis- be limited to those ho carry on

    ,undertain"s or activities hich have the element of prot or "ain/ or hich

    are pursued for prot or "ain/

    SSC in its Resolution no. (01 series of #'(2 denied the request

    3ssue:

    3s the rule of e4usdem "eneris can be applied in this case.

    5eld:

    The rule of e4usdem "eneris applies only here there is uncertainty. 3t is not

    controllin" here the plain purpose and intent of the &e"islature ould

    thereby be hindered and defeated.

    section 2 of Social Security &as enumerates e!ceptions to the la such asemployment under the 6overnment/ or any of its political subdivisions/branches or instrumentalities includin" corporations oned and controlled bythe 6overnment/ domestic service in a private home/ employment purelycasual/ etc. in hich the petitioner is not included.

    3t is to be noted that hen Republic Act 7o. ##$# as enacted/ services

    performed in the employ of institutions or"ani+ed for reli"ious or charitablepurposes ere by e!press provisions of said Act e!cluded from covera"ethereof %sec. 2/ par. 849 subpars. 0 and 2*. That portion of the la/ hoever/has been deleted by e!press provision of Republic Act 7o. #0'1/ hich tooeect in #'(0. This is clear indication that the &e"islature intended to includecharitable and reli"ious institutions ithin the scope of the la.