Title
Social Security System vs. Department of Justice
Case
G.R. No. 158131
Decision Date
Aug 8, 2007
SSS sued SENCOR directors for non-remittance of employee contributions. Settlement offers failed; SC ruled novation inapplicable, reinstating criminal charges due to public interest in SSS obligations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 158131)

Applicable Law

The legal framework for this case includes Republic Act No. 1161 (Social Security Act of 1954) and Republic Act No. 8282 (amendments to RA 1161), particularly provisions regarding the employer's obligation to remit contributions and the penalties for non-compliance.

Factual Background

The Martels, serving as directors of SENCOR, failed to remit contributions totaling P6,936,435.80 from January 1991 to May 1997. Upon their offer to assign property for debt settlement, the SSS withdrew a prior complaint but retained the right to revive it if no settlement occurred. After further non-compliance, the SSS filed a new complaint against the Martels and others for contributions due from February 1991 to October 2000, amounting to P21,148,258.30.

Initial Prosecutorial Findings

The Pasay City Prosecutor's Office found probable cause to indict the Martels, rejecting their argument that a compromise converted the criminal liability into a civil obligation. They argued that the original criminal liability was consummated before any offer of settlement was made. This conclusion led to an indictment for violations of the Social Security Act.

Department of Justice Ruling

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed the prosecutor’s findings, determining that a compromise existed due to the withdrawal of the initial complaint and the offer of property. They argued that this created a new creditor-debtor relationship which extinguished the original criminal obligation.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the DOJ’s determination, concluding that the DOJ’s interpretation of a compromise agreement was within its purview and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court asserted that it lacked the power to determine whether probable cause existed for prosecution.

Issues on Appeal

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the concept of novation could abate the prosecution of the Martels under the Social Security Act. The petitioner contended that the relationship formed did not extinguish their criminal liability.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against the application of novation. They clarified that the relationship between SENCOR and the SSS stemmed from a statutory obligation rather than a true contractual one that could be altered. Furthermore, the Martels' failure to comply with the original obligation and the condition for the proposed property assignment meant that no effective compromise existed.

Novation and Criminal Liability

Novation generally requires a prior enforceable obligation that is modified or replaced. The Court distinguished pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.