G.R. No. 183891; August 3, 2010
ROMARICO J. MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Romarico J. Mendoza, as President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. (SATII), was convicted for violating Section 22(a) and (d) in relation to Section 28 of R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997). The Information alleged that from August 1998 to July 1999, he willfully failed to remit SSS premium contributions totaling ₱421,151.09 for SATII employees. Despite entering into and receiving extensions for an approved 18-month installment payment plan with the SSS, Mendoza defaulted, leading to his criminal indictment.
Mendoza sought to exculpate himself, arguing SATII ceased operations due to economic decline and that he, as a corporate officer, should not be held personally liable. He also contested the Information’s designation of him as “proprietor” and claimed mitigating circumstances like good faith and his academic stature. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, imposing a penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza, as the managing head of a corporation, is criminally liable under the Social Security Act for the corporation’s failure to remit employee premium contributions.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Mendoza’s conviction but modified the penalty. The offense of non-remittance of SSS contributions is malum prohibitum; thus, criminal intent or good faith is immaterial. The law imposes a strict liability to ensure compliance with the state’s social security policy. Regarding personal liability, Section 28(f) of R.A. No. 8282 explicitly states that if the offense is committed by a corporation, its “managing head” shall be liable for the penalties. As SATII’s President and CEO, Mendoza is incontrovertibly its managing head, making him personally accountable for the corporate delinquency. His designation in the Information as “proprietor” does not vitiate the charge, as the term connotes management and control, aligning with his actual role.
On the penalty, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The prescribed penalty under the law is prision correccional in its minimum to medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) as the minimum, to prision mayor in its minimum to medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) as the maximum. However, since the amount involved exceeded ₱22,000.00, the maximum term is subject to incremental increase. Consequently, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.