Ben Sta Rita Vs CA

DIVISION
[ GR No. 119891, Aug 21, 1995 ]
BEN STA. RITA v. CA +
RESOLUTION
Petitioner Sta. Rita was charged in the RTC with violating Section 2(a) in
relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of the Social Security Law. It was
alleged that, "as President/General Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc. a
compulsorily (sic) covered employer under the SSL did then and there
willfully and unlawfully fail, neglect and refuse and still fails, neglects
and refuses to remit to the Social Security System contributions for SSS,
Medicare and Employees Compensation for its covered employees." [1]
Petitioner Sta. Rita moved to dismiss said criminal case on the following
grounds:
1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and;
2. That the RTC has no jurisdiction over this case.[2]
The RTC sustained petitioner's motion and dismissed the criminal case
filed against him.
The People, through the Solicitor General, filed in the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the order of
dismissal issued by the trial court. CA granted petition and reinstated
the criminal case against the petitioner. Petitioner filed MR but
subsequently denied due to late submission.
In the Petition for Review, petitioner Sta. Rita contends that the Filipino
seafarers recruited by B. Sta. Rita Co. and deployed on board foreign
vessels outside the Philippines are exempt from the coverage of R.A. No.
1161 under Section 8 (j) (5) thereof:
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the right to appeal is a statutory
right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the
rules.[4] These rules, particularly the statutory requirement for perfecting
an appeal, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial
business.[5] Petitioner's failure to seasonably file the Petition and its
failure to comply with the aforequoted Circulars of the Court necessitate
the denial of the Petition.
Besides, even if the Petition had been filed on time and had complied
with the Circulars, it would still have to be denied as petitioner has failed
to show that respondent appellate court committed any reversible error
in rendering the assailed decision.
The Court agrees with the CA that the Information filed against
petitioner was sufficient as it clearly stated the designation of the offense
by the statute, i.e. violation of the Social Security Law, and the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense, i.e., petitioner's
failure to remit his contributions to the SSS. The CA found that there
is prima facie evidence to support the allegations in the Information and
to warrant the prosecution of petitioner.
Respondent appellate court correctly upheld the validity of the

Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the DOLE and the
SSS. Upon the one hand, contrary to the trial court's finding, the
Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the Social Security
Commission per the Commission's Resolution No. 437, dated 14 July
1988.[6] Upon the other hand, the Memorandum of Agreement is not a
rule or regulation enacted by the Commission in the exercise of the
latter's quasi-legislative authority under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161, as
amended, which reads as follows:
"Sec. 4. Powers and Duties of the Commission. For the attainment of its
main objectives as set forth in section two hereof, the Commission shall
have the following powers and duties:
(a) To adopt, amend and rescind, subject to the approval of the

President, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions and purposes of this Act.
x x x x x x x x x"

What the Memorandum of Agreement did was to record the
understanding between the SSS on the one hand and the DOLE on the
other hand that the latter would include among the provisions of the
Standard Contract of Employment required in case of overseas
employment, a stipulation providing for coverage of the Filipino seafarer
by the SSS. The Memorandum of Agreement is not an implementing
rule or regulation of the Social Security Commission which, under
Section 4(a) abovequoted, is subject to the approval of the President.
Indeed, as a matter of strict law, the participation of the SSS in the
establishment by the DOLE of a uniform stipulation in the Standard
Contract of Employment for Filipino seafarers was not necessary; the
Memorandum of Agreement related simply to the administrative
convenience of the two (2) agencies of government.
Moreover, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's contention that

Section 8 (j) (5) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended, absolutely exempts
Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels from the coverage of the SSS
statute. Section 8 (j) (5) simply defines the term "employment" and does
not in any way relate to the scope of coverage of the Social Security
System. That coverage is, upon the other hand, set out in Section 9 of
R.A. No. 1161 as amended, which defines the scope of SSS coverage in the
following terms:
"Sec. 9. Compulsory Coverage. (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be

compulsory upon all employees not over sixty years of age and their
employers; Provided, x x x
(b) Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for

employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis."
(As amended by Sec. 2, P.D. No. 177, S-1973 and Sec. 6, P.D. No. 735-S-
1975) (Italics supplied)
It will be seen that the Memorandum of Agreement is in line with

paragraph 9 (b) of the Social Security statute quoted above. The
Memorandum of Agreement provides, inter alia, that:
"x x x x x x x x x

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,
the parties hereto agree and stipulate that one of the conditions that will
be imposed by the Department of Labor and Employment in the
contract for overseas employment is the registration for coverage of
seafarers with the Social Security System, through the manning
agencies as the authorized representatives of the foreign employers in
conformity with Section 9, paragraph (b) of the Social Security
Law (R.A. No. 1161, as amended), subject to the following terms and
conditions:
x x x x x x x x x"[7]
(Italics supplied)
Thus, the Standard Contract of Employment to be entered into between

foreign shipowners and Filipino seafarers is the instrument by which the
former express their assent to the inclusion of the latter in the coverage
of the Social Security Act. In other words, the extension of the coverage
of the Social Security System to Filipino seafarers arises by virtue of the
assent given in the contract of employment signed by employer and
seafarer; that same contract binds petitioner Sta. Rita or B. Sta. Rita
Company, who is solidarily liable with the foreign
shipowners/employers.
It may be noted that foreign shipowners and manning agencies had

generally expressed their conformity to the inclusion of Filipino
seafarers within the coverage of the Social Security Act even prior to the
signing of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement. Thus, the
Whereas clauses of the Memorandum of Agreement state that:
"WHEREAS, in the 74th Maritime Session (ILO) held from September

24 to October 9, 1987 in Geneva, it was agreed that as an internationally
accepted principle, seafarers shall have the right to social security
protection;
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREAS, after a series of consultations with seafaring unions and

manning agencies, it was the consensus that Philippine social security
coverage be extended to seafarers under the employ of vessels flying
foreign flags;
x x x x x x x x x [8]
(Italics supplied)
It is, finally, worthy of special note that by extending the benefits of the
Social Security Act to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels, the
individual employment agreements entered into with the stipulation for
such coverage contemplated in the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of
Agreement, merely give effect to the constitutional mandate to the State
to afford protection to labor whether "local or overseas."[9] Nullification
of the SSS stipulation in those individual employment contracts, through
nullification of the Memorandum of Agreement, constituted serious
reversible error on the part of the trial court. That petitioner should seek
to deprive his countrymen of social security protection after his foreign
principal had agreed to such protection, is cause for dismay and is to be
deplored.
The Court of Appeals properly held that the reinstatement of the

criminal case against petitioner did not violate his right against double
jeopardy since the dismissal of the information by the trial court had
been effected at his own instance.[10] There are only two (2) instances
where double jeopardy will attach notwithstanding the fact that the case
was dismissed with the express consent of the accused. The first is
where the ground for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence for the
prosecution; and the second is where the criminal proceedings have been
unreasonably prolonged in violation of the accused's right to speedy trial.
[11]
Neither situation exists in the case at bar. There is no legal
impediment to the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426
against petitioner Sta. Rita.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for having

been filed late, for failure to comply with applicable Court Circulars and
for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Ben Sta Rita Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Sta Rita Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Sta Rita Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIVISION

[ GR No. 119891, Aug 21, 1995 ]

BEN STA. RITA v. CA +

1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and;

2. That the RTC has no jurisdiction over this case.[2]

Respondent appellate court correctly upheld the validity of the

(a) To adopt, amend and rescind, subject to the approval of the

x x x x x x x x x"

Moreover, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's contention that

"Sec. 9. Compulsory Coverage. (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be

(b) Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for

It will be seen that the Memorandum of Agreement is in line with

"x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x"[7]

Thus, the Standard Contract of Employment to be entered into between

It may be noted that foreign shipowners and manning agencies had

"WHEREAS, in the 74th Maritime Session (ILO) held from September

WHEREAS, after a series of consultations with seafaring unions and

x x x x x x x x x [8]

The Court of Appeals properly held that the reinstatement of the

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for having

Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

You might also like