G.R. No. 224943 . March 20, 2017.
JORGE B. NAVARRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Jorge B. Navarra, as President and Chairman of Far East Network of Integrated Circuits Subcontractors Corporation (FENICS), was charged with violation of the Social Security Act for the corporation’s failure to remit employee SSS contributions, employer counterpart contributions, and loan amortizations from July 1997 to June 2000, despite demands. The prosecution established that FENICS, a registered employer, incurred total unpaid obligations of over P10 million. During preliminary investigation, petitioner offered to settle via installment, issuing two checks, one of which was dishonored. He later proposed restructuring the debt during trial, which the SSS rejected.
In his defense, Navarra claimed FENICS had shut down during the delinquency period, so there were no salaries from which to deduct contributions. He also asserted that the Human Resources Department, not him, had custody of the funds. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The courts found his shutdown claim inconsistent with his prior settlement offers and letters, which implied acknowledgment of the debt.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner, as a corporate officer, may be held criminally liable under Section 28(h) of Republic Act No. 8282 (the Social Security Act) for the corporation’s failure to remit SSS contributions.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic hinges on the personal liability imposed on responsible corporate officers by the law’s penal provisions. Section 28(h) of R.A. 8282 presumes misappropriation when an employer fails to remit deducted contributions within 30 days, penalizing it under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa). Jurisprudence clarifies that while the employer-corporation is primarily liable, the corporate officers responsible for the remittance become personally liable for the criminal act.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that only the corporate entity should be charged. His active role as President and Chairman, coupled with his direct communications and settlement offers to the SSS acknowledging the debt, established his responsibility for the non-remittance. His defense of corporate closure was belied by his own attempts to settle the very obligations he claimed did not exist. The law’s purpose of protecting workers’ social security benefits necessitates holding accountable the individuals who control corporate acts. Thus, petitioner’s personal criminal liability was properly adjudged.