Case Digest (G.R. No. 183891)
Facts:
Romarico J. Mendoza v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183891, August 03, 2010, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza was president of Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. (SATII). He was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 4, with willfully failing to remit Social Security System (SSS) premium contributions for SATII employees covering August 1998 to July 1999, amounting to P421,151.09 (inclusive of penalties), in violation of Section 22(a) and (d) vis-à-vis Section 28 of R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997). The Information described him as the "proprietor" of SATII.
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment of six years and one day to eight years, and ordered payment of the unpaid contributions and penalties. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision dated March 5, 2007, affirmed the RTC, holding that under Section 28(f) of the Social Security Act the managing head of a juridical person is criminally liable for offenses of the juridical person; the CA further noted that under the special law (the Social Security Act) good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a defense.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration in the CA, arguing among other points that (a) the Information was fatally defective because it called him a "proprietor" rather than a director or managing head, (b) as a mere conduit or vicariously liable officer he should not be criminally punished, and (c) mitigating circumstances (economic shutdown of the company, attempts to settle by installments approved by SSS, payments from personal funds, and his standing in the community) warranted leniency. The CA denied reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the CA's decision as to liability but modified the penalty, holding that the proper penalty is governed by Section 28(h) of the Social Security Act, which adopts the penalty under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and thus invokes the Indeterminate Sentence Law; apply...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Information defective because it described petitioner as "proprietor" rather than as a director or managing head, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction or requiring dismissal?
- Can petitioner, as president/chairman/CEO of SATII, be held criminally liable under Section 28(f) of R.A. No. 8282 for failure to remit SSS contributions of the juridical person?
- Do good faith, economic downturn, installment arrangements with SSS, or payment from personal funds negate criminal liability for failure to remit SSS contributions?
- What is the proper penalty for the offense committed: the penalty under Section 28(e) of the Social Security Act as applied by the lower courts, or the penalty under Section 28(h) adoptin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)