G.R. No. 74689 - Benedicto vs. Abad Santos Jr.

Petitioner Roberto R. Benedicto filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with a preliminary injunction.
The petition sought to set aside lower court orders, specifically the orders dated 3 March 1986 and 21 April 1986, which denied his Motion to Quash Criminal Case No. 3863 and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

In March 1971, petitioner began a trucking business.
He employed the late Salvador Pillon as a truck driver without reporting Pillon’s employment to the Social Security System (SSS) for compulsory coverage.
Consequently, petitioner failed to pay the requisite SSS contributions.
The non-compliance was discovered by the SSS around 1975 when Pillon had already died in 1974.

On 19 October 1975, following Pillon’s death, the SSS deputized investigator Antonio Obillos, Jr. from its Bacolod City Regional Office to conduct an inquiry on alleged violations of the Social Security Act (Republic Act No. 1161, as amended).
In his Field Investigation Report dated 29 October 1975, Obillos noted:

Petitioner’s admission of failing to report and register Pillon’s employment from March 1971 until Pillon’s death.
That petitioner eventually complied by submitting the appropriate SSS forms (E-1 and R-IA) following the investigator’s suggestion.
That both petitioner and Pillon were assigned SSS Identification Nos. 07-17376-00 and 07-0687-312 respectively, effective 1 March 1971.
That petitioner was assessed SSS premiums amounting to P491.70 (exclusive of penalties).

Obillos recommended that his findings be transmitted to the SSS Legal Department for further action.

Approximately ten years later, on 18 July 1985, the SSS Legal Department prompted the Assistant City Fiscal of Bacolod City to file an information charging petitioner with violations of Section 24(a) in relation to Section 28(e) of the Social Security Act.
The information alleged that from March 1971 to March 1974, petitioner willfully neglected to register his employee, thereby causing damage estimated at P6,381.00—the amount equivalent to the benefits the heirs of Pillon would have received, had he been properly reported.
Before arraignment, petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that his criminal liability had already been extinguished by prescription.
The SSS, however, opposed the motion, asserting that the applicable prescriptive period was twenty (20) years as provided in Section 22(b) of the Social Security Act, and that the information was filed within this period.

In an Order dated 3 March 1986, the respondent Judge denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash by citing Paragraph B of Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1161 (as amended by PD 1636), which allowed a twenty-year period for initiating action against a delinquent employer.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration also failed.
The petition for prohibition and mandamus was later filed to challenge the continuation of the criminal action while preserving the civil action for SSS contribution recovery.

Whether the criminal action against petitioner Benedicto for failing to register his employee and remit the corresponding SSS contributions has prescribed.
Whether the twenty (20) year prescriptive period stated in Section 22(b) of the Social Security Act applies to criminal prosecutions.
Whether a four (4) year prescriptive period, as substituted under Act No. 3326 (as amended) and comparative penal provisions, is more appropriate for criminal liability in this case.

Whether the legislative intent in Section 22(b) was to provide a uniform prescriptive period for all actions against a delinquent employer, regardless of the nature of the action (civil or criminal).
Whether the extinction of criminal liability through prescription necessarily extinguishes the related civil liability for enforcement of the SSS contributions.