Sss v Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila

SSS V ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. FACTS: AG&P informed SSS of its delinquencies and proposed to pay it, but requested for the condonation of all penalties. SSS suggested 2 options to AG&P: payment by installment or through dacion en pago. AG&P choose dacion en pago. SSS informed AG&P of its decision to include other companies with outstanding obligation within within the umbrella of DMCI. This, Semirara was included in the proposed settlement through through dacion en pago. They offered a lot in Batangas as form of payment. To effect the transfer, a Deed of Assignment has to be executed between the parties and SSS was not able to draft one so AG&P prepared one. More than a year after the approval of AG&P’s proposal, SSS sent a revised copy but the obligation of AG&P ballooned allegedly because of the additional interest and penalty charges assessed on AG&P’s outstanding balance. AG&P didn’t want to pay the additional charges but SSS won’t accept the payment by dacion en pago unless the additional ch arges are included. The CA held that the subject of the complaint is the enforcement of the dacion en pago, thus the action then is one for specific performance which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. SSS insists that it is the SSS’s Commission who has who has jurisdiction ISSUE: Which body has jurisdiction jurisdiction to entertain a controversy controversy arising from the non-implementation non-implementation of a dacion en pago? HELD: