G.R. No. 194137 June 21, 2017
Ambassador Hotel, Inc., Petitioner vs. Social Security System, Respondent

FACTS

The Social Security System (SSS) filed a criminal complaint against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions from June 1999 to March 2001. An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging Yolanda Chan, the hotel’s President, among others. During trial, the prosecution established the hotel’s delinquency through the testimony of an SSS accounts officer. The defense, presented by Yolanda Chan, argued that she could not be held criminally liable as she was prevented from assuming her presidential duties by her predecessor until April 2001, a period covering the delinquency.
The RTC acquitted Yolanda Chan, finding she was not the managing head during the relevant period. However, it held the hotel civilly liable for the unpaid contributions. Ambassador Hotel appealed the civil liability aspect, contending the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over it as it was not formally impleaded as a party in the criminal case.

ISSUE

Whether the court acquired jurisdiction to hold Ambassador Hotel, Inc. civilly liable for unpaid SSS contributions despite its not being formally impleaded as an accused in the criminal case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the hotel’s civil liability. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the obligation and the rules governing civil liability ex delicto. The payment of SSS contributions is a mandatory statutory duty under Republic Act No. 8282. Every criminal offense inherently includes civil liability unless extinguished. In this case, the criminal action was instituted against the responsible corporate officers for the non-payment, which is an act or omission punishable by law. The civil liability for the unpaid contributions arises from this same act.
Jurisdiction over the person of the corporation is not necessary for the enforcement of this civil liability. The Court ruled that the civil liability sought is based on the law creating the obligation (the SSS law) and is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The hotel, as the employer, is the principal obligor. The acquittal of the officer does not extinguish the corporation’s civil liability, as the obligation to pay contributions is distinct from the officer’s personal criminal liability. The hotel failed to present evidence of payment, and its witness admitted knowledge of the delinquency and inability to locate payment records. Thus, preponderance of evidence established its liability for the unremitted contributions.