x x x x
That sometime during the month of August 1998 to July 1999, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then the proprietor of Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc., duly registered employer with the Social Security System (SSS), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and/or refuse to remit the SSS premium contributions in favor of its employees amounting to P421, 151.09 to the prejudice of his employees.
Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 22(a) and (d) in relation to Sec. 28 of Republic Act No. 8282, as amended (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Romarico J. Mendoza, guilty as charged beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is hereby meted the penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.
The accused is further ordered to pay the Social Security System the unpaid premium contributions of his employees including the penalties in the sum of P421, 151.09.
SO ORDERED. 9 (emphasis supplied)
(f) If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing head, directors or partners shall be liable for the penalties provided in this Act for the offense.
If an association, the one liable is the managing head; if a partnership, the ones liable are the partners; and if a corporation, the ones liable are the directors. (underscoring supplied)
No discretion or alternative is granted respondent Commission in the enforcement of the law's mandate that the employer who fails to comply with his legal obligation to remit the premiums to the System within the prescribed period shall pay a penalty of three 3% per month. The prescribed penalty is evidently of a punitive character, provided by the legislature to assure that employers do not take lightly the State's exercise of the police power in the implementation of the Republic's declared policy 'to develop, establish gradually and perfect a social security system which shall be suitable to the needs of the people throughout the Philippines and (to) provide protection to employers against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death.'[Section 2, Social Security Act; Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Social Security Commission, 1 SCRA 10, January 20, 1961] In this concept, good faith or bad faith is rendered irrelevant, since the law makes no distinction between an employer who professes good reasons for delaying the remittance of premiums and another who deliberately disregards the legal duty imposed upon him to make such remittance. From the moment the remittance of premiums due is delayed, the penalty immediately attaches to the delayed premium payments by force of law. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
. . . no need to resort to statutory construction [for] Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law imposes penalty on:(1) the managing head;
(2) directors; or
(3) partners, for offenses committed by a juridical person. (emphasis supplied)
Sec. 28. Penal Clause. (e) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Act or with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,0000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years or both, at the discretion of the court. x x x
Sec. 28. Penal Clause - (h) Any employer who after deducting the monthly contributions or loan amortizations from his employee's compensation, fails to remit the said deductions to the SSS within thirty (30) days from the date they became due shall be presumed to have misappropriated such contributions or loan amortizations and shall suffer the penalties provided in Article Three hundred fifteen [Art. 315] of the Revised Penal Code. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;x x x x.
Endnotes:
* Designated as Additional Member, per Special Order No. 843 (May 17, 2010), in view of the vacancy occasioned by the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.
1 Rollo, pp. 87-93.
2 Id. at 3.
3 Id. at 11.
4 Id. at 3.
5 Ibid.
6 TSN, September 26, 2002, p. 13.
7 Id. at 24-26.
8 TSN, January 7, 2003, p. 3.
9 Rollo, p. 93.
10 Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Michael P. Elbinias concurring; id. at 49-64.
11 Id. at 69.
12 G.R. No. L-26712-16, December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 982, 987-988.
13 Tan v. Ballena, G.R. No. 168111, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 229, 255.
14 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines a proprietor as "[o]ne who has the legal right or exclusive title to anything. In many instances, it is synonymous with owner."
15 G.R. No. 170735, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 456, 458.
16 Vide: People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555.
17 G.R. Nos. 118950-54, 335 Phil. 242 (1997). In this case, the Court, thru Associate Justice Jose Vitug, ruled that "The fact the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months whole the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00.