ROMARICO MENDOZA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 183891 | October 19, 2011
Del Castillo, J.

Doctrine: The guarantee of equal protection simply means that no person or class of persons
shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other
classes in the same place and in like circumstances.

FACTS
The present case is a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner assailing the previous
decision of this Court which affirmed his conviction for his failure to remit the Social Security
Service (SSS) contributions of his employees.
The assailed decision affirmed, with modification the ruling of both the RTC and the
appellate court based on the petitioner’s admission that he did not remit the SSS premium
contribution of his employees. He claimed that his failure to do so was the shutting down of his
company due to the decline in the economy. Moreover, since the remittance of SSS employee
contributions is mandated by a special law, the defense of good faith and lack of criminal intent
is immaterial.
On appeal, petitioner now contends the passage of RA 9903 into a law effectively
mandates the withdrawal of all pending cases against employers who would remit their
contributions within six months after the effectivity of the law. He avers that he already paid and
settled all his delinquencies when his case was still pending appeal with the Court of Appeals.
He also contends that he should be acquitted because of the failure of the prosecution to prove all
elements of the crime.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the accused should be acquitted following the passage of RA 9903- NO.

The Court in this case reiterated that the liability of the petitioner is already a settled
matter
and the basis for which was his own admission. Nor the passage of the law will benefit him
because it intends to grant condonation only to those who have pending cases and paid the
delinquencies within the 6-month period set by the law. It is payment within the prescribe month
that would trigger the applicability of RA 9903.

2. W/N there was a violation of the equal protection clause- NO.

Petitioner also avers the he is entitled to the equal protection of the law since he already
paid the delinquent contributions and being similarly situated with those who paid within the
period, he should not be treated differently.

In dismissing this contention, the Court reiterated that it cannot amplify the scope of the
law because it would tantamount to an amendment by judicial legislation which is a violation of
the trias politica principle. Since the law created two classifications of employees and the intent
of the law was to benefit to only those who will pay within the period prescribed, then no ground

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
exists to justify his acquittal. An implementing rule or regulation must be consistent with the
provisions of the statute, it cannot amend the law either by abridging or expanding its scope.
Moreover, the guarantee of equal protection simply means that no person or class of
persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like circumstances. In the present case, the difference in
the dates of payment provides a substantial distinction between the two classes of employers.
Also by providing the said period, the law refused to allow a sweeping condonation to all
delinquent employers to the detriment of the policy of RA 8282.

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS petitioner Romarico J. Mendozas

motion for reconsideration. The Court AFFIRMS the petitioners conviction for violation of
Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8282, and the petitioner is
thus sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In light of
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9903, the petitioners liability for accrued penalties is
consideredWAIVED. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court transmits the case to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant of
executive clemency to the petitioner.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2