De Jesus v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Victor de Jesus, then Director and Finance Officer of Southern Island Colleges, along with his stepmother, Eugenia de Jesus, the Directress-Chairman of the Board of Directors, were charged with violating Section 28 (h) of the Social Security Law. The charge stemmed from their alleged failure to remit SSS loan amortizations for an employee, Salustiano Sonido, amounting to P583.35 for the period of January to August 1988. The Information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch II, General Santos City. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information with the MTCC, raising several grounds including lack of authorization from the SSS to file the information, SSS's exclusive jurisdiction, extinguishment of criminal liability due to the sale of shares, and the absence of damage as an element of estafa. Respondent Judge Eddie R. Rojas denied this motion on February 27, 1991. Petitioner then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, erroneously stating that decisions of the MTCC are not directly reviewable by their court and that the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing his petition. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, first addressed the procedural misconception of the Court of Appeals regarding its jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus from Municipal Trial Courts, clarifying that such jurisdiction is original and concurrent with the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts under B.P. 129. While acknowledging the practice of remanding such cases, the Supreme Court opted to resolve the substantive issues presented. The Court then denied the petition on its merits, affirming the MTCC Judge's order denying the motion to quash. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding SSS authorization, jurisdiction, extinguishment of liability, and the element of damage in the context of Section 28 (h) of the Social Security Law, directing the MTCC Judge to proceed with the trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on the ground that decisions of Municipal Trial Courts are not directly reviewable by the Court of Appeals. Whether the City Prosecutor was authorized to file the Information in the absence of prior authority from the SSS. Whether the SSS and not the MTCC has jurisdiction over the case. Whether the criminal action was extinguished by the sale of petitioner's shares in the school before the complaint was filed. Whether damage is an element of the offense charged under Section 28(h) of the Social Security Law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 31, 1991, and August 28, 1991. However, it denied the writ prayed for and dismissed the petition, affirming the Order of respondent Judge dated February 27, 1991, denying petitioner's motion to quash. Respondent Judge was directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 16886-2.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: The Court held that the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Section 9 of B.P. 129, which is concurrent with the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts. It is erroneous to hold that decisions of Municipal Trial Courts are not directly reviewable by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition on this ground was reversed. The Court noted that while remanding to the Regional Trial Court is a practice for convenience, the Court of Appeals could have heard the case itself. On the authority to file the Information: The Court ruled that Section 28(i) of the Social Security Law clearly provides that criminal actions arising from violations of the Act may be commenced by the SSS or the employee concerned. Prior consent of the SSS is not essential before an employee can commence a criminal action. Thus, the City Prosecutor was authorized to file the Information. On the jurisdiction of the SSS: The Court clarified that Section 5 of the Social Security Law, which pertains to the settlement of disputes, covers matters related to coverage, benefits, contributions, and penalties, and is cognizable by the SSS Commission. However, prosecution of criminal offenses is not included within the SSS's adjudicatory powers, requiring recourse to regular courts for prosecution of criminal actions. Therefore, the regular courts, not the SSS, have jurisdiction over the criminal case. On the extinguishment of criminal liability: The Court reiterated the principle that criminal liability is personal and cannot be transferred to another by contract. The petitioner's reported transfer of his shares in the school did not extinguish his criminal liability. Liability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and is only extinguished as provided by law. The time of filing the complaint is material only for determining prescription. On the element of damage: The Court found the argument that there is no estafa for want of damage untenable because the petitioner was charged under Section 28(h) of the Social Security Law, not directly under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 28(h) defines the offense as the employer's failure to remit deducted contributions or loan amortizations to the SSS within thirty days from the due date, creating an ipso facto presumption of misappropriation. Damage is not an element of the act punished under Section 28(h), unlike in ordinary estafa.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against Municipal Trial Courts, and it is erroneous to dismiss such petitions solely on the ground that decisions of Municipal Trial Courts are not directly reviewable by the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, damage is not an element in the offense defined under Section 28(h) of the Social Security Law, which presumes misappropriation upon failure to remit deducted contributions or loan amortizations within thirty days.