GR 119891; (August, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119891, August 21, 1995
BEN STA. RITA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ben Sta. Rita, as President/General Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc., was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with violation of the Social Security Law for allegedly failing to remit SSS, Medicare, and Employees Compensation contributions for its covered employees. The employees in question were Filipino seafarers deployed on board foreign vessels. Sta. Rita moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. He contended that the seafarers’ service on alien vessels outside the Philippines was expressly exempted from compulsory coverage under Section 8(j)(5) of Republic Act No. 1161.
The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case. It ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the SSS, which extended social security coverage to such seafarers, was null and void. The trial court held that the MOA was entered into by the SSS Administrator without the required sanction of the Social Security Commission and approval of the President, thereby contravening Section 4(a) of the Social Security Law.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reinstatement of the criminal case against petitioner, thereby upholding the validity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement extending social security coverage to Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The petition was procedurally infirm for being filed late and for non-compliance with court circulars regarding the affidavit of service. On substantive grounds, the Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s ruling.
The Court upheld the validity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement. It clarified that the MOA was not an implementing rule or regulation issued by the Social Security Commission in its quasi-legislative capacity, which would require presidential approval under Section 4(a) of the law. Instead, the MOA was a valid agreement recording the consensus between DOLE and SSS to include a social security coverage stipulation in the standard employment contracts for overseas Filipino workers, particularly seafarers. This implementation gave effect to the constitutional mandate to protect labor, whether local or overseas. Consequently, the exemption under Section 8(j)(5) did not apply because the seafarers’ coverage was effectuated through their individual employment contracts incorporating the SSS stipulation, not by a unilateral administrative amendment of the law.
Furthermore, the reinstatement of the criminal case did not violate double jeopardy. The dismissal was granted upon the petitioner’s own motion, and none of the exceptions where double jeopardy attaches despite the accused’s consent—such as dismissal due to insufficiency of evidence or violation of the right to speedy trial—were present. The Information was sufficient on its face, and prima facie evidence existed to warrant prosecution.