G.R. No. 195549 - Willaware Products Corp. vs. Jesichris Manufacturing Corp.

The case originates from an Information dated January 18, 2001, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 206, charging Jorge B. Navarra with violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Section 28(h) and (f) of Republic Act (RA) 8282.
The Information charged petitioner for failing to remit the Social Security System (SSS) contributions — including both the amounts deducted from employees’ salaries and the corresponding employer shares — for the period from July 1997 to June 2000.
The offense was anchored on the fact that petitioner, as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Far East Network of Integrated Circuits Subcontractors (FENICS) Corporation, neglected his duty even while the corporation was actively under operation, and later, during its gradual shutdown.

Evidence in the case shows that from 1999 to 2002, eleven employees of FENICS filed complaints with the SSS alleging the non-remittance of their contributions.
An investigation by Account Officer Felicula B. Argamosa of SSS confirmed that FENICS failed to remit the contributions totaling P10,077,656.24 (excluding the mandatory 3% penalty) for the period in question.
Although a motion led to the dismissal of charges against petitioner’s co-accused on the ground that they were no longer members of the board during the relevant period, petitioner remained the sole accused and pleaded “not guilty.”

While case proceedings were underway, petitioner sent a letter dated October 25, 2000 to the SSS offering to settle the delinquent remittances in installments.

The offer included two postdated checks of P500,000.00 each; however, only the first check was encashed while the second was dishonored due to a closed account.
Despite receipt of a notice of dishonor, petitioner did not remedy the situation with the proposed installment payments.

Later, on April 25, 2003, petitioner sent another letter proposing a restructuring of FENICS’ account with the SSS, which was subsequently rejected.

In a Decision dated March 13, 2013, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charged offense.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to imprisonment ranging from a minimum of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to a maximum of 20 years of reclusion temporal.
Additionally, petitioner was ordered to pay the SSS an amount of P9,577,656.24 (reflecting a deduction of P500,000.00 from the original delinquency) plus a 3% monthly interest penalty running from July 1997 until full payment.

Claims of defects in the Information for failing to properly charge a criminal offense.
The contention that under Section 28(h) of RA 8282, only the corporation (FENICS) should be charged and not its officers.
The assertion that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that the private complainants were actual employees of FENICS.
Alleging that his criminal liability was extinguished by a compromise agreement with the SSS.

The CA, in its Decision dated October 29, 2015, affirmed petitioner’s conviction in its entirety.

It held that petitioner’s failure to object to the alleged defects in the Information before his plea constituted a waiver of said defects.
It ruled that as an officer of a corporation, petitioner could be held liable for FENICS’ failure to remit contributions, even if the corporation had been dissolved.
The CA noted the documentary evidence affirmed that the complainants were indeed employees of FENICS.
The CA interpreted petitioner’s letters, including the one from April 25, 2003, as an implied admission of guilt.
The court found no basis in the claimed compromise agreement since the SSS had not assented to any such arrangement.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 19, 2016, prompting the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Section 22(a) of RA 8282 mandates that contributions withheld from employee salaries must be remitted to the SSS within the specified period, failing which a penalty of 3% per month is imposed.
Section 28(f) of RA 8282 provides that if a corporation (or similar entity) fails in its duty, its managing head, directors, or partners will also be held criminally liable.
The provisions establish that timely remittance is mandatory and diverging from it attracts both monetary sanctions and criminal prosecution, regardless of any asserted good faith or corporate operational issues.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to object to the alleged defect in the Information before his arraignment constitutes a waiver of such defects, thereby barring him from raising the issue on appeal.
Whether the CA correctly held that, as an officer of FENICS, petitioner is criminally liable for the corporation’s failure to remit the SSS contributions despite his claims of non-custody of the contributions.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that FENICS failed to remit the employees’ contributions, and that petitioner’s subsequent conduct (including the issuance of letters proposing settlement) effectively constituted an implied admission of guilt.
Whether any compromise agreement with the SSS, as argued by petitioner, could have extinguished his criminal liability under the provisions of RA 8282.