G.R. No.

191237

ROBERT KUA, CAROLINE N. KUA, and MA. TERESITA N. KUA, Petitioners,

- versus -

GREGORIO SACUPAYO and MAXIMINIANO PANERIO, Respondents.

RELEVANT FACTS:
The petitioners of this case, namely the Kua family, were all executives of the Vicmar
Development company. They were charged with criminal cases for failing to remit the SSS
contributions of the respondents.
The respondents, Mr. Gregorio Sacupayo and Mr. Maximiano Panerio have no knowledge
of the non-remittance of their SSS contributions until they were discharged unjustly by the
VICMAR company in August 7, 2004 and August 9, 2004 to which they filed illegal dismissal
complaints.
The petitioners have deducted the required amount as mandated by law to the
respondents but have not remitted them since 2003 to 2004. The amounts that have not been
remitted amounted to five thousand seven hundred sixty pesos (Php5,760.00) each, alongside a
total of eleven thousand two hundred thirty-two pesos (Php11,232.00) deducted from Mr.
Sacupayo’s wages for a ten thousand pesos (Php10,000) loan he took out on November 14, 2002.
The petitioners have only remitted four thousand pesos (Php4,000) as payment for the loan.
The respondents only gained knowledge of the non-remittance when Mr. Panerio was
inflicted with Chronic Persistent Asthma on September 28, 2004. He was denied the sickness
benefits of the SS due to his contributions not being remitted. Mr. Sacupayo on the other hand
was denied another loan application due to his previous loan being unpaid, which was caused by
VICMAR not remitting the funds to the SS despite deducting it from their wages.
The respondents then filed criminal cases before the Office of the City Prosecutor in
Cagayan de Oro on June 6, 2005 for violation of Section 22 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) of RA
8282 otherwise known as the Social Security Act of 1997. It was then given to branch 20 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) due to the municipal courts lacking jurisdiction in the matter.
The petitioners then appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (RSP) in the
finding of probable cause against them. The RSP then responded by telling the City Prosecutor
to desist in filing the case.
The respondents also filed for reconsideration considering the penalty of the criminal
charges, but they were denied. This resulted in them filing for action in the Department of Justice
(DOJ). The petition remains unanswered by the DOJ at the time of writing.
The petitioners then filed another motion to dismiss in the Regional Trial Court due to the RSP
reversing the finding of probable cause against them. The City Prosecutor has seconded this
motion with a comment manifesting the agreement of its decision with the RSP as they are waiting
for the resolution from the DOJ. The Regional Trial Court has suspended it because they are
waiting for the action of the DOJ.
The RTC has then issued the withdrawal of the court cases against the petitioners due to the lack
of action by the DOJ on December 5, 2006.
In response, the respondents have filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to reverse the
RTC’s ruling to withdraw the criminal cases against the petitioners before an appellate court.
The appellate court has then granted the reinstatement of the criminal cases against the
petitioners, to which the petitioners have then filed a certiorari which is the case in question.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether the delayed payment of SS contribution from the prescribed time is grounds for
dismissing the case against them.
2. Whether the inaction of the DOJ is grounds for dismissal of the case
3. Whether the manifestation of the Prosecutor is binding in dismissal or reinstatement of
cases

CONTENTIONS AND REASONING

The petitioners, in their first ruling with the RTC branch 20, argued that they have already
remitted the contributions of the respondents, thus absolving them of the petitions under section
28 due to their compliance, albeit belated. This has been backed by the RSP which supported the
withdrawal of the case before the RTC.
The respondents then petitioned against the lack of jurisdiction by the RTC.
The respondents then also filed a petition before the DOJ regarding the jurisdiction of the
RSP, to which the DOJ has seemingly done no action.
The resulting delay has become grounds for the petitioners to further dismiss the case
before the RTC, which has previously set aside the cases in question. The petitioners argue that
the time for the cases have passed, therefore it should be dismissed.
The respondents have contended this decision, filing a petition before the appellate court.
HOLDINGS

The first court, the municipal trial court, has withdrawn from the case due to its lack of
jurisdiction of the matter. The cases were then transferred to the RTC branch 20 for the resolution
of the case.

The regional trial court has then moved to dismiss the cases against the petitioners. The
court states that section 28 of RA. 8282 is disputable, merely laying out the penalties of the non-
remittance and not the guidelines thereof. This means that by paying the respondents their
contributions, the court deems that the petitioners have already fulfilled section 28 of the SS Law.
Additionally, the RTC has adopted the manifestation of the City Prosecutor supporting the
dismissal of the case. The RTC has also mentioned the inaction of the DOJ as grounds for the
withdrawal of the case against the petitioners, affirming the argument of the petitioners to dismiss
it on ground of fairness.

In the move to reverse this ruling, the respondents have then filed a petition for certiorari
and mandamus to the appellate court. The appellate court, in contrast to the earlier ruling of the
trial court, has then found a grave misconduct on the ruling of the trial court. This is because they
have merely adopted a resolution from outside influence, namely the city prosecutor, instead of
weighing the merits of the case themselves. This contrasts with the ruling case of Crespo v. Mogul
that states that while the prosecutor oversees criminal cases, judgement must ultimately reside
with the court, and the opinions of the prosecutor are non-binding. Moreover, the court finds that
under all circumstances, failure to act upon Sec 22 and Sec 28 of RA 8282 is mala prohibita,
meaning that no circumstances may be used to justify the action, in this case the non-remittance
of the SS contributions of the respondents. This then destroys the assumption of the petitioners
of being absolved of the case, having lately complied only after the case was filed against them.

The appellate court then further concludes that the trial court has not acted upon its power,
choosing rather to only adopt the recommendations of both the City Prosecutor and the inaction
of the Department of Justice rather than fulfill their duty of an independent weighing and
assessment of the merits of the case.

WHEREFORE, the court has decided that the decision of the appellate court is sound by legal
standards. This means that the petition by Kua et al., is therefore DENIED. The cases against the
petitioners are to be reinstated.
ANALYSIS

While the trial court’s decision is clear malpractice of its jurisdiction, the appellate court
has corrected this misjudgment.

The Regional Trial Court has relied on factors that are not bearing of the case at hand.
First, they have relied on the seeming inaction of the DOJ when in fact it has little to no bearing
on the nature of the case. The respondents only filed before the DOJ due to the decision of the
court, not because the merits of their case are questionable. The Regional Trial Court should have
first done an independent study of the case, deferring the opinions of outside parties to ensure
that the case resolution is sound and fair. By then adopting a manifestation rather than their own
sound assessment, the RTC has failed to issue justice to the aggrieved party, which in this case
are the respondents. It is also worthy to note that the RSP and CSP seemingly favor the
petitioners, adopting resolutions which have little to no basis rather than a misinterpretation of
Section 28 of the RA 8282.

The appellate court has seen through these mistakes and have rightfully reversed the
erring ruling of the RTC on the matter. Rather than relying on outside opinions and adopting them
as court resolution, the court has clearly done an independent assessment which then relies on
the proper interpretation of section 28 and the nature of disobedience to its actions. This then
makes the petitioners liable for their action, whatever the cause may have been.

I think that this will strengthen the fight for worker’s rights and make them reinstate their
fate in the justice system, especially in the processing of labor cases. There are no circumstances
which allow an employer to deny a worker of his rights, especially contributions that in the
knowledge of their employees are remitted to the SSS. It certainly is not justifiable that the burden
of the company in finances, which is mentioned by the petitioners as reasons for them not
remitting the contribution, be a reason for them to deny the workers of their contributions which in
turn has aggrieved them.

REFERENCES
Supra source. (n.d.).
http://source.gosupra.com/docs/decision/57758?fbclid=IwAR14cNxN1Bj_Gng-
K9NK9SHb98_z_zOmWZAoc10CESAIgVe0FW15q8XXyd8

G.R. No. 191237 - ROBERT KUA, CAROLINE N. KUA, AND MA. TERESITA N. KUA,
PETITIONERS, VS. GREGORIO SACUPAYO AND MAXIMINIANO PANERIO,
RESPONDENTS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library. (n.d.).
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/57836