GR 173846; (February, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173846; February 2, 2011
JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, ERLINDA PANLILIO, NICOLE MORRIS and MARIO T. CRISTOBAL, Petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, CITY OF MANILA, represented by HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ANTONIO M. ROSALES; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; and the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, as corporate officers of Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (SIHI), filed a petition for Suspension of Payments and Rehabilitation with the RTC of Manila, Branch 24. On October 18, 2004, Branch 24 issued a stay order enjoining the enforcement of all claims against SIHI. At the time of this filing, several criminal charges for violations of Section 28(h) of the Social Security Act of 1997 (for non-remittance of SSS contributions) in relation to Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa) were pending against the petitioners in RTC Manila, Branch 51, initiated by the SSS. Petitioners filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Branch 51, arguing the stay order from the rehabilitation court should also cover the criminal cases. Branch 51 denied the motion, ruling the stay order did not include criminal prosecutions, as public interest requires the investigation and prosecution of such criminal acts. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial, holding that criminal liability is personal to the offender and not a “claim” against the corporation covered by the stay order.
ISSUE
Whether or not the stay order issued by the rehabilitation court (Branch 24) in the corporate rehabilitation proceedings covers the criminal cases for violation of the SSS law and Estafa filed against the corporate officers.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of “all claims” as an incident to corporate rehabilitation does not contemplate the suspension of criminal charges filed against corporate officers. The Court explained that corporate rehabilitation involves the suspension of claims referring to debts or demands of a pecuniary nature to allow the rehabilitation receiver to exercise powers free from interference. Criminal actions, such as those for violation of the SSS law, have a different purpose. The gravamen of the offense is the act of failing to remit deducted contributions, which is punished to protect employees and the public interest. A criminal action’s dominant objective is to punish the offender and vindicate an outrage against the sovereignty of the state, with the civil indemnity being merely incidental. Therefore, prosecution for these crimes is not a “claim” that can be enjoined under the corporate rehabilitation stay order. The petition was denied for lack of merit.