Larga v. Ranada Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Celso M. Larga, an owner and operator of "Bistcor Diesel Calibration Service," issued a check for P3,840.00 to the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) as payment for employer-employee contributions for January to April 1984. The check was dishonored as stale, and Larga failed to replace it or pay the amount. Subsequently, an information was filed against Larga and Dioscoro Larga for violation of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752, alleging their failure to remit employer-employee contributions amounting to P26,880.00 from January 1984 up to the present, despite deductions from salaries. Procedural History: Petitioner Larga filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that his criminal liability was extinguished by Executive Order No. 90, which purportedly made HDMF contributions voluntary. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Quash. Larga filed a Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating his argument that Executive Order No. 90, being favorable, should be applied retroactively. The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, seeking to set aside the RTC orders and arguing that his criminal liability was extinguished and the RTC lost jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the criminal liability for failure to remit HDMF contributions that accrued prior to January 1, 1987, was extinguished by the issuance of Executive Order No. 90. Whether Executive Order No. 90 repealed Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The orders of the Regional Trial Court denying the Motion to Quash and the Motion for Reconsideration are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether criminal liability for failure to remit HDMF contributions accrued prior to January 1, 1987, was extinguished by Executive Order No. 90: The Court held that Executive Order No. 90 modified Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1752 by making fund coverage voluntary only after December 31, 1986. It did not, however, eliminate the consequences of obligatory coverage that accrued prior to January 1, 1987. Therefore, employer-employee contributions that had accrued on or before December 31, 1986, still had to be remitted, and the obligation to do so continued to exist and be exigible. The Court emphasized that Executive Order No. 90 amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1752 prospectively, not retroactively, and that a court cannot give retroactive effect to amendatory provisions against their express terms. The obligation to remit previously accrued contributions remained a positive law obligation. The case of Pardo de Tavera v. Valdez was cited to support the principle that the intent of the legislative authority in enacting an amendatory statute must be given effect, and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code does not alter this rule. On the issue of whether Executive Order No. 90 repealed Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752: The Court found that Executive Order No. 90 did not purport to "de-criminalize" all prior violations of P.D. No. 1752, nor did it modify or repeal Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752, either expressly or impliedly. The Court reiterated the principle that implied repeals are not favored and are not casually assumed. It is the duty of a court to reconcile provisions of statutes if possible. The Court found no clear inconsistency or irreconcilable conflict between Sections 9 and 10 of E.O. No. 90 and Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752. While it is true that from January 1, 1987, onwards, refusal to become or remain a member of the Pag-Ibig Fund is no longer a violation of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1752, the failure to remit contributions that accrued on or before December 31, 1986, remains punishable under Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752. The Court noted that even failure to remit voluntary contributions accruing after January 1, 1987, in accordance with the Implementing Rules and Regulations, also constitutes a violation punishable under Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752.
Main Doctrine
Executive Order No. 90, which made contributions to the Home Development Mutual Fund voluntary effective January 1, 1987, did not extinguish criminal liability for the failure to remit contributions that accrued on or before December 31, 1986, as such obligations remained exigible and punishable under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752.