People v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza, as president of Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. (SATII), failed to remit SSS premium contributions for its employees for the period August 1998 to July 1999, amounting to ₱421,151.09, inclusive of penalties. Petitioner admitted the failure to remit but claimed SATII shut down due to economic decline. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 4, convicted petitioner for violation of Section 22(a) and (d) vis-à-vis Section 28 of R.A. No. 8282. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that lack of criminal intent or good faith is not a defense and that petitioner, as President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer, is the managing head liable under Section 28(f) of the Act. The appellate court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner maintained that the managing head or president is not specifically mentioned as liable under Section 28(f) and that he was charged as a "proprietor" and not a director. He also argued for the consideration of mitigating circumstances and claimed he was merely a conduit.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, as president of SATII, is liable for the failure to remit SSS premium contributions. Whether lack of criminal intent or good faith is a valid defense for the failure to remit SSS premium contributions. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is the proper penalty for the offense committed.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner but modified the penalty imposed. Petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as a minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as a maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of the petitioner as managing head: The Court held that Section 28(f) of R.A. No. 8282 imposes liability on the "managing head" of an association, partnership, corporation, or other institution. The term "managing head" is to be interpreted in its broadest connotation, encompassing those with management, control, and power over the business entity, to prevent unscrupulous businessmen from evading liability through creative managerial titles. Petitioner, as President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of SATII, clearly falls under this definition. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that "proprietor" is not among the liable parties, stating that the word "proprietor" connotes management and control. Therefore, petitioner is personally liable for the offense committed by SATII. On the relevance of good faith or bad faith: The Court reiterated the principle established in United Christian Missionary Society v. Social Security Commission that the remittance of contributions to the SSS is mandatory. The law imposes a penalty for failure to comply, and this penalty attaches by force of law from the moment the remittance is delayed. The offense is considered malum prohibitum, meaning the act is wrong because it is prohibited by law, irrespective of the intent or motive of the offender. Consequently, good faith or bad faith is rendered irrelevant, and it cannot serve as a defense for the failure to remit the SSS premiums. On the proper penalty: The Court found that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's imposition of penalty based on Section 28(e) of R.A. No. 8282. The proper penalty for the specific offense of failing to remit deducted SSS contributions within thirty days from the due date is provided in Section 28(h) of the same Act, which adopts the penalties from Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the amount misappropriated (₱421,151.09), and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law as discussed in People v. Gabres, the appropriate penalty should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. This modification corrects the erroneous application of Section 28(e) and ensures the penalty aligns with the specific offense and the amount involved.
Main Doctrine
Failure to remit SSS premium contributions is a malum prohibitum offense, rendering good faith or bad faith irrelevant. The managing head of a corporation, in its broadest connotation, is liable for such offense.