4.ambassador Hotel VS SSS
4.ambassador Hotel VS SSS
4.ambassador Hotel VS SSS
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
642
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
643
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
644
64
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
reverse and set aside the July 29, 2010 Decision1 and
October 18,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
646
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
647
_______________
5 Id., at p. 30.
649
Issues
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
PETITIONER.
II
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF
DUE PROCESS WHEN THE LOWER COURT DECLARED
IT LIABLE TO RESPONDENT SSS EVEN THOUGH IT IS
NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE
LOWER COURT DECLARING PETITIONER LIABLE TO
RESPONDENT SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR
ALLEGED UNREMITTED SSS CONTRIBUTION IS VALID.6
In its Memorandum,7 Ambassador Hotel argued that it
has a separate and distinct personality from its officers
such as Yolanda; that it was neither a party to the criminal
case nor
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
6 Id., at p. 155.
7 Id., at pp. 152-161.
651
was summons issued against it, hence, the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over it; that it was deprived due
process when the RTC ruled that it was civilly liable for the
unpaid SSS contributions even though the trial court had
no jurisdiction over its person; and that the RTC had no
right to render an adverse decision against it because it
was not a party in the criminal action.
In its Memorandum,8 the SSS countered that under R.A.
No. 8282, employers, including juridical entities, that
violate their obligation to remit the SSS contributions shall
be criminally liable and that in cases of corporations, it is
the managing head that shall be the one criminally
responsible. It argued that since Yolanda, as President of
Ambassador Hotel, was properly arrested, the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over it. The SSS added that the
acquittal of Yolanda did not extinguish the civil liability of
the hotel because it was deemed instituted in the criminal
action. Further, it highlighted that Ambassador Hotel was
given sufficient notice of its delinquency and the pending
case against it.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
The Social Security System is a government agency
imbued with a salutary purpose to carry out the policy of
the State to establish, develop, promote and perfect a sound
and viable tax-exempt social security system suitable to the
needs of the people throughout the Philippines which shall
promote social justice and provide meaningful protection to
members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of
disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death and other
contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial
burden.9
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
652
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
10 Id.
653
tion falls due until paid. If deemed expedient and advisable by the
Commission, the collection and remittance of contributions shall
be made quarterly or semi-annually in advance, the contributions
payable by the employees to be advanced by their respective
employers: Provided, That upon separation of an employee, any
contribution so paid in advance but not due shall be credited or
refunded to his employer.
Verily, prompt remittance of SSS contributions under
the aforesaid provision is mandatory. Any divergence from
this rule subjects the employer not only to monetary
sanctions, that is, the payment of penalty of three percent
(3%) per month, but also to criminal prosecution if the
employer fails to: (a) register its employees with the SSS;
(b) deduct monthly contributions from the salaries/wages of
its employees; or (c) remit to the SSS its employees’ SSS
contributions and/or loan payments after deducting the
same from their respective salaries/wages.11
To acquire jurisdiction over
Ambassador Hotel, its manag-
ing head, director or partner
must be arrested
As discussed above, even when the employer is a
corporation, it shall still be held liable for the non-
remittance of SSS contributions. It is, however, the head,
directors or officers that shall suffer the personal criminal
liability. Although a corporation is invested by law with a
personality separate and distinct from that of the persons
composing it,12 the corporate veil is pierced when a
director, trustee or officer is made per-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
11 Navarra v. People, G.R. No. 224943, March 20, 2017, 821 SCRA
179.
12 Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, 646 Phil. 210, 236; 631
SCRA 596, 621 (2010).
654
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
2/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827
_______________
13 Aratea v. Suico, 547 Phil. 407, 414; 518 SCRA 501, 508-509 (2007).
655
_______________
656
_______________
17 People v. Ocoya, 172 Phil. 576, 581; 83 SCRA 218, 222 (1978).
657
_______________
659
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777f8ba6ecc85a4dac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19