Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
for
Social
Legislation
Neil Bryan N. Moninio
M6
1. ANTONIO TAN, DANILO DOMINGO and ROBERT LIM VS. AMELITO BALLENA
et. Al. G.R. No. 168111
July 4, 2008
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
Petitioners Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingo and Robert Lim were officers of Footjoy
Industrial Corporation (Footjoy), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing shoes and other kinds of footwear, prior to the cessation of its operations
sometime in February 2001. On 19 March 2001, respondent Amelito Ballena, and one
hundred thirty-nine (139) other employees of Footjoy, filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan against the company and
petitioners Tan and Domingo in their capacities as owner/president and administrative
officer, respectively.
The Complaint-Affidavit alleged that the company did not regularly report the
respondent employees for membership at the Social Security System (SSS) and that it
likewise failed to remit their SSS contributions and payment for their SSS loans, which
were already deducted from their wages. In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, petitioners Tan
and Domingo blamed the economic distress that beset their company for their failure to
timely pay and update the monthly SSS contributions of the employees. They alleged
that the company's dire situation became even more aggravated when the buildings and
equipment of Footjoy were destroyed by fire on 4 February 2001. This incident
eventually led to the cessation of the company's operations. Because of this, some of
the company's employees tried to avail themselves of their SSS benefits but failed to do
so. It was then that the employees filed their complaint. Petitioners Tan and Domingo
thereafter underlined their good faith and lack of criminal culpability when they
acknowledged their fault and demonstrated their willingness to pay their obligations by
executing a memorandum of agreement with the SSS.
DOJ favored herein Petitioners, thus, Respondents claimed that the DOJ committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that no
probable cause existed to charge petitioners Tan, Domingo and Lim with violations of
the SSS Law; that the allegation of petitioners' failure to report respondents to the SSS
for coverage is not supported by evidence; and that charges [for the violation] of a
special law such as the Social Security Act can be overcome by a show of good faith
and lack of intent to commit the same.
CA reversed the contention of DOJ. In reversing the DOJ resolutions, the Court of
Appeals ruled that the agency acted with grave abuse of discretion when it committed a
palpable mistake in dismissing the charges against petitioners. The appellate court
found that petitioners were indeed remiss in their duty to remit the respondents' SSS
contributions in violation of Section 28(h) of the Social Security Law. The petitioners'
claim of good faith and the absence of criminal intent should not have been considered,
as these were evidentiary in nature and should thus be more properly proved in a trial.
Furthermore, the appellate court declared that said defenses are unavailing in crimes
punishable by a special law, which are characterized as mala prohibita. In these crimes,
it is enough that they were done freely and consciously and that the intent to commit the
same need not be proved.
RULING:
This Court finds no fault in the assailed actions of the Court of Appeals.
After carefully reviewing the records of this case, we agree with the Court of Appeals'
findings that there was indeed probable cause to indict petitioners for the offenses
charged.
In a preliminary investigation, a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence
is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Certainly, it does
not involve the determination of whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt pointing to the guilt of the person. Only prima facie evidence is required; or that
which is, on its face, good and sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain
of facts constituting the party's claim or defense; and which, if not rebutted or
contradicted, will remain sufficient. Therefore, matters of evidence are more
appropriately presented and heard during the trial.
In the present case, petitioners were charged with violations of the SSS Law for their
failure to either promptly report some of the respondents for compulsory
coverage/membership with the SSS or remit their SSS contributions and loan
amortizations. In support of their claims, respondents have attached unto their Joint
Complaint-Affidavit a summary of their unreported and unremitted SSS contributions, as
gathered from the SSS Online Inquiry System, and a computation of their unreported
and unremitted SSS contributions.
On the part of the petitioners, they have not denied their fault in not remitting the SSS
contributions and loan payments of the respondents in violation of Section 28,
paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of the SSS Law. Instead, petitioners interposed the defenses
of lack of criminal intent and good faith, as their failure to remit was brought about by
alleged economic difficulties, and they have already agreed to settle their obligations
with the SSS through a memorandum of agreement to pay in installments. As held by
the Court of Appeals, the claims of good faith and absence of criminal intent for the
petitioners' acknowledged non-remittance of the respondents' contributions deserve
scant consideration. The violations charged in this case pertain to the SSS Law, which
is a special law. As such, it belongs to a class of offenses known as mala prohibita.
The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala
prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent
of the offender is immaterial. Thus, the petitioners' admission in the instant case of their
violations of the provisions of the SSS Law is more than enough to establish the
existence of probable cause to prosecute them for the same.
Applicable SSS Provisions:
SEC. 9. Coverage. - (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all
employees not over sixty (60) years of age and their employers: x x x Provided,
finally, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as a limitation on the right of
employers and employees to agree on and adopt benefits which are over and
above those provided under this Act.
SEC. 10. Effective Date of Coverage. - Compulsory coverage of the employer
shall take effect on the first day of his operation and that of the employee on the
day of his employment: x x x.
SEC. 22. Remittance of Contributions. -- (a) The contribution imposed in the
preceding section shall be remitted to the SSS within the first ten (10) days of
each calendar month following the month for which they are applicable or within
such time as the Commission may prescribe. Every employer required to deduct
and to remit such contributions shall be liable for their payment and if any
contribution is not paid to the SSS as herein prescribed, he shall pay besides the
contribution a penalty thereon of three percent (3%) per month from the date the
contribution falls due until paid. If deemed expedient and advisable by the
Commission, the collection and remittance of contributions shall be made
quarterly or semi-annually in advance, the contributions payable by the
employees to be advanced by their respective employers: Provided, That upon
separation of an employee, any contribution so paid in advance but not due shall
be credited or refunded to his employer.
(b) The contributions payable under this Act in cases where an employer refuses
or neglects to pay the same shall be collected by the SSS in the same manner as
taxes are made collectible under the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended. Failure or refusal of the employer to pay or remit the contributions
herein prescribed shall not prejudice the right of the covered employee to the
benefits of the coverage.
The right to institute the necessary action against the employer may be
commenced within twenty (20) years from the time the delinquency is known or
the assessment is made by the SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the
case may be.
(c) Should any person, natural or juridical, defaults in any payment of
contributions, the Commission may also collect the same in either of the following
ways:
1. By an action in court, which shall hear and dispose of the case in
preference to any other civil action; x x x.
SEC. 24. Employment Records and Reports. (b) Should the employer misrepresent the true date of employment of the
employee member or remit to the SSS contributions which are less than
those required in this Act or fail to remit any contribution due prior to the
date of contingency, resulting in a reduction of benefits, the employer shall
pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the difference between the amount
of benefit to which the employee member or his beneficiary is entitled had
the proper contributions been remitted to the SSS and the amount payable
on the basis of the contributions actually remitted:
SEC. 28. Penal Clause. (e) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Act or
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission, shall be
punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor
more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or imprisonment for not
less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years, or
both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That, where the violation
consists in failure or refusal to register employees or himself, in case of
the covered self-employed, or to deduct contributions from the employees'
compensation and remit the same to the SSS, the penalty shall be a fine
of not less Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor more than Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and imprisonment for not less than six (6)
years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years.
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an
association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing
head, directors or partners shall be liable to the penalties provided in this
Act for the offense.
(h) Any employer who after deducting the monthly contributions or loan
amortizations from his employee's compensation, fails to remit the said
deductions to the SSS within thirty (30) days from the date they became
due shall be presumed to have misappropriated such contributions or loan
amortizations and shall suffer the penalties provided in Article Three
hundred fifteen of the Revised Penal Code.
2. IMMACULADA
COMMISSION
SECURITY
Issue: WON petitioner can be made solely liable for the corporate obligations of Impact
Corporation pertaining to unremitted SSS premium contributions and penalties
therefore.
FACTS:
Petitioner was accused of failing to remit the compulsory contributions of
respondent spouses to respondent Social Security System (SSS).
Prior to this, on March 27, 2000 (before the filing of the Information), respondent
spouses had filed a labor case for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime pay,
holiday pay, holiday premium pay, service incentive leave and 13 th month pay against
Ever-Ready Phils., Inc. and its officers Joseph Thomas Co, William Co, Wilson Co and
petitioner.
On September 29, 2000, labor arbiter (LA) Ernesto S. Dinopol rendered a decision
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. He held that respondent spouses had
voluntarily left the company as shown by the deeds of release and quitclaim they
executed. They were also not entitled to their monetary claims under Article 82 of the
Labor Code because they were field personnel of the company.
In a resolution dated May 31, 2001, it affirmed the decision of the LA and ruled that the
respondent spouses, as sales representatives, were independent contractors.
Therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. This
NLRC resolution attained finality on December 20, 2001.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent spouses were entitled to coverage under RA 1161?
Held:
The final and executory NLRC decision (to the effect that respondent spouses were not
the employees of petitioner) was binding on this criminal case for violation of RA 1161,
as amended.
mentioned under Sec. 28(f) as liable, does not lie. For the word connotes management,
control and power over a business entity.
The term managing head in Section 28(f) is used, in its broadest connotation, not to any
specific organizational or managerial nomenclature. To heed petitioners reasoning
would allow unscrupulous businessmen to conveniently escape liability by the creative
adoption of managerial titles.
On December 31, 1982, petitioners filed a complaint against respondent Lorenzo Dy for
illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and non-payment of overtime pay, legal holiday
pay and premium pay for holiday and rest day.
On June 29, 1988, Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II issued a decision holding that the
termination of petitioners services was illegal. It, however, found petitioners claim for
overtime pay, legal holiday pay and premium pay for holiday and rest day to be
unfounded. All other money claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no
employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent Dy. It held that
respondent Dy was only an indirect employer of petitioners as they were actually
employed by respondent Amurao whom respondent Dy sub-contracted to provide labor
for his construction project. It also declared that petitioners were not illegally dismissed.
Held:
We are not convinced. respondent Dy merely presented his own affidavit and that of
respondent Amurao stating that petitioners were drinking within the premises by the
owner of Solmac. He did not present any other witness to substantiate the statements
contained in the affidavits.
Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. For dismissal to be
legal, it must be based on just cause which must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence.
As a rule, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to backwages and
reinstatement to their former position without loss of seniority rights. There are
instances, however, where reinstatements is no longer viable as where the business of
the employer has closed, or where the relations between the employer and the
employee have been so severely strained that it is not advisable to order reinstatement,
or where the employee decides not to be reinstated. In such events, the employer will
instead be ordered to pay separation pay.
The court hereby order the private respondent to pay petitioners their separation pay
and backwages.
retirement as primary beneficiaries, unfairly lumps all these marriages as sham relationships or were contracted
solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits accruing upon the death of the other spouse.
or filing is practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person,
personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not
practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a
written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.
In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the
importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the
prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.
In the case at bar, the address of Encarnacions counsel is Lopez, Quezon, while
Sonias counsels is Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon is 83 kilometers away from Lucena
City. Such distance makes personal service impracticable. As in Musa v. Amor, a written
explanation why service was not done personally might have been superfluous.
Without preempting the findings of the Court of Appeals on the merits of Sonias
petition, if Sonias allegations of fact and of law therein are true and the outright
dismissal of their petition is upheld without giving them the opportunity to prove their
allegations, Sonia would be deprived of her rightful death benefits just because of the
Kasunduan she forged with her husband Bonifacio which contract is, in the first place,
unlawful. The resulting injustice would not be commensurate to Sonia counsels
thoughtlessness in not explaining why Encarnacion were not personally served copies
of the petition.
February 2, 2011
10. JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, ERLINDA PANLILIO, NICOLE MORRIS and MARIO T.
CRISTOBAL, Petitioners,
vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, CITY OF MANILA, represented by HON.
PRESIDING JUDGE ANTONIO M. ROSALES; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; and
the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents.
FACTS:
Jose Marcel Panlilio, ErlindaPanlilio, Nicole Morris and Marlo Cristobal (petitioners), as
corporate officers of Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (SIHI), filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24, a petition for Suspension of Payments and
Rehabilitation. The RTC of Manila, Branch 24, issued an Order staying all claims
against SIHI upon finding the petition sufficient in form and substance. At the time,
however, of the filing of the petition for rehabilitation, there were a number of criminal
charges pending against petitioners in Branch 51 of the RTC of Manila. These criminal
charges were initiated by respondent Social Security System (SSS) and involved
charges of Estafa. Consequently, petitioners filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 51, a
Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings. Petitioners argued that the stay
order issued by Branch 24 should also apply to the criminal charges pending in Branch
51. Petitioners, thus, prayed that Branch 51 suspend its proceedings until the petition
for rehabilitation was finally resolved but Branch 51 issued an Order denying petitioners
motion to suspend the proceedings. It ruled that the stay order issued by Branch 24 did
not cover criminal proceedings. Branch 51 then denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioners. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the
Order of Branch 51 but the CA issued a Decision denying the petition. Hence petitioners
filed before the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of "all claims" as an incident to a corporate rehabilitation
also includes the suspension of criminal charges filed against the corporate officers of
the distressed corporation.
RULING: