A.C. No. 6708 - Quiambao vs. Bamba

Petitioner Nely T. Co was charged with violation of Section 22(d) in relation to Section 28(e) of Republic Act No. 1161 (as amended by RA 8282, the Social Security Law of 1997).
The charge stemmed from the allegation that petitioner failed to remit compulsory contributions to the Social Security System (SSS) for respondent spouses Jose and Mercedes Lim, who claimed to be her employees.
The Information was filed on January 12, 2001, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 78.

Prior to the filing of the Information, on March 27, 2000, respondent spouses filed a labor case for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits (overtime pay, holiday pay, etc.) against Ever-Ready Marketing, Inc. and petitioner, among others.
Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol rendered a decision on September 29, 2000, dismissing the labor complaint for lack of merit, noting that the respondent spouses had voluntarily left the company via executed deeds of release and quitclaim, and further held that as field personnel they were not entitled to certain monetary claims under Article 82 of the Labor Code.
On May 31, 2001, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter’s ruling by declaring that the respondent spouses, as sales representatives, were independent contractors. This decision effectively determined that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent spouses, attaining finality on December 20, 2001.

On July 3, 2001, petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information charging her with the violation on the basis that the facts did not constitute an offense; she argued that respondent spouses were not her employees, citing the NLRC ruling.
Judge Percival Mandap Lopez of the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to quash in a resolution dated November 12, 2001.
Dissatisfied with the RTC decision, petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 8, 2002, seeking to overturn the RTC ruling.
The CA, in a resolution dated January 13, 2003, ordered petitioner to implead the People of the Philippines, the SSS, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the respondent spouses.
Due to petitioner’s failure to comply with this order, the CA dismissed her petition on May 15, 2003, and denied reconsideration on October 6, 2003, attributing her non-compliance to the negligence of her former counsel.

The criminal case (Criminal Case No. Q-01-97619) was based on the erroneous premise that petitioner maintained an employer-employee relationship with the respondent spouses, thus imposing the obligation to remit contributions under the SSS law.
Petitioner argued that the abandonment of her case by her former counsel constituted extrinsic fraud, which she claimed impaired her substantial rights.
Additionally, petitioner maintained that the factual finding in the earlier illegal dismissal and labor case—establishing that respondent spouses were not her employees—should preclude any criminal liability under the SSS law.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of her petition.

Specifically, whether her assertion that the negligence of her former counsel amounted to extrinsic fraud was a meritorious ground for reconsideration.

Whether the RTC erred in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information.

In view of the prior and final NLRC determination that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent spouses, should the criminal charge based on that relationship be dismissed?
Whether the principle of res judicata—and the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment—prevents re-litigation of the already resolved issue regarding the employment status of the respondent spouses.