Sta. Rita v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Ben Sta. Rita, as President/General Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc., was charged with violating Section 2(a) in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended (Social Security Law), for allegedly failing to remit SSS, Medicare, and Employees Compensation contributions for covered employees. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the criminal case, ruling that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Social Security System (SSS) extending coverage to Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels was void for lack of proper approval. The People, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal case. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that Filipino seafarers recruited by his company and deployed on foreign vessels are exempt from R.A. No. 1161 under Section 8(j)(5) thereof, arguing that the MOA illegally amended this provision. The petition was filed late and failed to comply with certain Court circulars regarding service of process and affidavits of service.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period and complied with the required circulars. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the reinstatement of the criminal case against the petitioner. Whether the Information filed against the petitioner was sufficient. Whether the Memorandum of Agreement between the DOLE and the SSS is valid. Whether Section 8(j)(5) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended, exempts Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels from SSS coverage. Whether the reinstatement of the criminal case against the petitioner violates his right against double jeopardy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for having been filed late, for failure to comply with applicable Court Circulars and for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness and compliance with circulars: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the right to appeal is a statutory right that must be availed of by strict compliance with the rules, particularly the reglementary period for perfection. Petitioner's failure to file the petition seasonably and to comply with the Court's circulars on service of process and affidavits of service necessitated the denial of the petition. These rules are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business. The belated submission of the affidavit of service further underscored the non-compliance. On the reinstatement of the criminal case: The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in ordering the reinstatement of the criminal case against the petitioner. The CA found prima facie evidence to support the allegations and warrant prosecution, a finding the Supreme Court found no reversible error in. On the sufficiency of the Information: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Information was sufficient. It clearly stated the designation of the offense under the statute and the specific acts or omissions constituting the offense, namely, the petitioner's failure to remit contributions. On the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement: The Court found no merit in the trial court's ruling that the MOA was void. It clarified that the MOA was approved by the Social Security Commission. More importantly, the MOA was not a rule or regulation enacted by the Commission requiring presidential approval under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161. Instead, it merely recorded the understanding between the DOLE and SSS regarding the inclusion of a stipulation for SSS coverage in standard employment contracts for seafarers. The MOA related to administrative convenience and did not amend the law. On the exemption under Section 8(j)(5): The Court clarified that Section 8(j)(5) of R.A. No. 1161 defines the term "employment" and does not relate to the scope of SSS coverage. The scope of coverage is set out in Section 9, which states that Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign employers for employment abroad may be covered on a voluntary basis. The MOA was found to be in line with Section 9(b), as it facilitated the voluntary coverage through the standard employment contract signed by the employer and seafarer, making the petitioner solidarily liable. On double jeopardy: The Court held that the reinstatement of the criminal case did not violate petitioner's right against double jeopardy. The dismissal of the information was at the petitioner's own instance. Double jeopardy would only attach in such cases if the dismissal was due to insufficiency of evidence or if the proceedings were unreasonably prolonged, neither of which was present here. Therefore, there was no legal impediment to the reinstatement of the case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari that fails to comply with the reglementary period for filing and the Court's circulars on service of process and affidavits of service may be denied outright. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement between the DOLE and SSS extending SSS coverage to Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels, as it aligns with the statutory provisions on voluntary coverage and the constitutional mandate to protect labor.