This concerns the SSS, we already sent an email to them last Sept.5, 2016 but got no reply as of the moment, tried to call the hotlines many times but can't get through them, and also went to inquire personally but it seems the front line staff has the same thing to say. We just want the higher authority to know our concern and give us a clearer and just consideration. We want to confirm our theories.
This is the case:
X is a househelper of Y since 2004. Y was able to enroll X with SSS only in Jan. 2006, X was given SSS no. & able to have 123 months of contribution. Then, X filed for retirement claims last April, 2016 but was denied of the benefit for the reason given: NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL WITH THE SSS IN 2006 BECAUSE SHE WAS 61 YEARS OLD, AT THAT TIME
Found in SSS website (Compulsory coverage of employees)
1. A private sector employee, whether permanent, temporary or provisional, who is not over 60 years old.
2. A household-helper earning at least P1,000 a month is compulsorily covered starting Sept. 1, 1993.
SSS Law under Section 12-B, "(a) A member who has paid at least one hundred twenty (120) monthly contributions prior to the semester of retirement and who (1) has reached the age of sixty (60) years and is already separated from employment or has ceased to be self‐employed or (2) has reached the age of sixty‐five (65) years, shall be entitled for as long as he lives to the monthly pension".
1. I believe that age requirement (not over 60 years old which applies only to private sector employees) is not applicable to household helper basing on what is stated in SSS website. Is the SSS wrong in the reason they have given and in denying the retirement of X?
2. Since X was given an SSS number, in my understanding, issuance of an SSS number means becoming SSS member and since she meets the requirements in section 12B of SSS law, she should be entitled to monthly pension. Is that correct?
3. Considering that the age requirement applies on household helper, it means that SSS is at fault in issuing her an SSS number knowing her age is 61 at that time and in continuing to receive the premiums that even reached for 123 months. Assuming SSS is at fault, is the only obligation of SSS is to refund the whole premium payments to X w/o interest? If not, what are the other benefits that can be claimed?
4. Just for additional knowledge, I've heard of "solutio indebiti/payment by mistake", is this case fall under this?
Thank you for taking your time. Godbless!
Last edited by samkevin on Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)