Sta. Rita vs. Court of Appeals

A petition for review on certiorari may be denied outright for late filing and failure to comply with the required affidavit of service; on the merits, the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement extending SSS coverage to Filipino seafarers is valid and does not require presidential approval because it is not a rule or regulation under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161.

Ben Sta. Rita was President/General Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc., a compulsorily covered employer under the Social Security Law. The DOLE and SSS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement extending Social Security, Medical Care and Employment Compensation coverage to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels. R.A. No. 1161, as amended, governs SSS coverage and defines employment; Section 4(a) governs Commission rules and regulations subject to presidential approval.

Ben Sta. Rita was the President/General Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc., a compulsorily covered employer under the Social Security Law. The Information in Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426 charged him with violating Section 2(a) in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, alleging that he willfully and unlawfully failed, neglected, and refused to remit to the SSS contributions for SSS, Medicare, and Employees Compensation for its covered employees.

Sta. Rita moved to dismiss on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. The RTC sustained the motion and dismissed the criminal case. It ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement between the DOLE and the SSS extending Social Security, Medical Care and Employment Compensation laws to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels was null and void because it was entered into by the SSS Administrator without the sanction of the Commission and approval of the President, in contravention of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended.

The People, through the Solicitor General, filed in the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the dismissal. The CA granted the petition and ordered the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 92, Quezon City, to reinstate the criminal case against Sta. Rita. Sta. Rita’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 17 April 1995.

Sta. Rita then filed in the SC a motion for extension of thirty days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari. The SC granted the motion and gave him until 9 June 1995 to file the petition, with a warning that no further extension would be given. Despite the warning, the petition was filed only on 13 June 1995, four days after the due date. It also failed to comply with requirement no. 2 of Circular No. 1-88, as amended, and Circular No. 19-91 because it did not contain an affidavit of service of copies to respondents; the affidavit of service was belatedly submitted only on 14 July 1995 through an ex-parte manifestation.

The CA found that the Information stated the designation of the offense and the acts or omissions complained of, and that there was prima facie evidence to support the allegations and warrant prosecution. The record also included Social Security Commission Resolution No. 437 dated 14 July 1988, which approved the Memorandum of Agreement.

• Exemption of Filipino Seafarers: Petitioner contended that 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), which excludes service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if employed when such vessel is outside the Philippines.
• Invalidity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement: Petitioner argued that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the DOLE and the SSS is null and void because it has the effect of amending R.A. No. 1161 by expanding its coverage; only Congress may validly amend legislative enactments.
• Dismissal Grounds: Petitioner moved to dismiss the criminal case on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.

• Timeliness and Compliance: Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied for having been filed four days after the extended deadline and for failure to comply with Circular No. 1-88, as amended, and Circular No. 19-91.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information sufficiently states the offense of violating the Social Security Law.
• Validity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement: Whether the Memorandum of Agreement is null and void for expanding the coverage of R.A. No. 1161 without the sanction of the Social Security Commission and approval of the President.
• Coverage of Filipino Seafarers: Whether Section 8(j)(5) of R.A. No. 1161 absolutely exempts Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels from SSS coverage.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the reinstatement of the criminal case violates petitioner’s right against double jeopardy because the dismissal was made at his own instance.

• Timeliness and Compliance: Yes. The petition was filed four days after the extended deadline and without the required affidavit of service; the rules on appeal are strictly followed.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Yes. The Information stated the designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting it, namely failure to remit contributions.
• Validity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement: No. The Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the Social Security Commission through Resolution No. 437 dated 14 July 1988 and was not a rule or regulation requiring presidential approval under Section 4(a).
• Coverage of Filipino Seafarers: No. Section 8(j)(5) defines “employment” and does not delimit SSS coverage; Section 9(b) permits voluntary coverage, and the Standard Contract of Employment supplies the assent.
• Double Jeopardy: No. The dismissal was at petitioner’s own instance, and neither exception—insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution or unreasonable delay violating speedy trial—is present.

• Timeliness and Compliance: The SC held that the right to appeal is statutory and a party seeking to avail of it must comply with the rules. The statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period is strictly followed because these rules are indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business. Petitioner filed the petition on 13 June 1995, four days after the 9 June 1995 extended deadline, and failed to comply with Circular No. 1-88, as amended, and Circular No. 19-91 because the petition did not contain an affidavit of service; the affidavit was submitted only on 14 July 1995. These failures necessitated denial. The SC added that even if the petition had been timely and compliant, it would still be denied for lack of merit.
• Sufficiency of the Information: The SC agreed with the CA that the Information was sufficient. It clearly stated the designation of the offense by the statute—violation of the Social Security Law—and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, namely petitioner’s failure to remit his contributions to the SSS. The CA found prima facie evidence to support the allegations and to warrant prosecution.
• Validity of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement: The SC held that the CA correctly upheld the Memorandum of Agreement. Contrary to the RTC’s finding, the Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the Social Security Commission per Commission Resolution No. 437 dated 14 July 1988. The Memorandum of Agreement is not a rule or regulation enacted by the Commission in the exercise of its quasi-legislative authority under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161, which requires presidential approval. What the Memorandum of Agreement did was record the understanding between the SSS and the DOLE that the DOLE would include in the Standard Contract of Employment for overseas employment a stipulation providing for SSS coverage of the Filipino seafarer. The Memorandum of Agreement is not an implementing rule or regulation of the Commission subject to presidential approval. The participation of the SSS in the establishment by the DOLE of a uniform stipulation in the Standard Contract of Employment was not necessary as a matter of strict law; the Memorandum of Agreement related simply to the administrative convenience of the two government agencies.
• Coverage of Filipino Seafarers: The SC found no merit in the contention that Section 8(j)(5) absolutely exempts Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels from SSS coverage. Section 8(j)(5) simply defines “employment” and does not relate to the scope of coverage of the SSS. Coverage is set out in Section 9 of R.A. No. 1161, as amended: Section 9(a) makes coverage compulsory upon all employees not over sixty years of age and their employers, while Section 9(b) provides that Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis. The Memorandum of Agreement is in line with Section 9(b). The Memorandum of Agreement stipulates that one condition in the contract for overseas employment is registration for coverage of seafarers with the SSS through manning agencies as authorized representatives of the foreign employers in conformity with Section 9(b). The Standard Contract of Employment is the instrument by which foreign shipowners express their assent to the inclusion of Filipino seafarers in the coverage of the Social Security Act; the extension of coverage arises by virtue of the assent given in the contract of employment signed by employer and seafarer, and that same contract binds petitioner Sta. Rita or B. Sta. Rita Company, who is solidarily liable with the foreign shipowners/employers. The SC also noted that foreign shipowners and manning agencies had generally expressed conformity to inclusion even prior to the Memorandum of Agreement, and the Whereas clauses cited the 74th Maritime Session of the ILO held from September 24 to October 9, 1987 in Geneva, where it was agreed that seafarers shall have the right to social security protection, and consultations with seafaring unions and manning agencies produced a consensus that Philippine social security coverage be extended to seafarers under the employ of vessels flying foreign flags. Extending the benefits of the Social Security Act to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels gives effect to the constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor whether local or overseas; nullification of the SSS stipulation through nullification of the Memorandum of Agreement constituted serious reversible error. The SC deplored petitioner’s attempt to deprive his countrymen of social security protection after his foreign principal had agreed to such protection.
• Double Jeopardy: The SC held that the CA correctly ruled that reinstatement of the criminal case did not violate petitioner’s right against double jeopardy because the dismissal of the Information by the RTC was effected at petitioner’s own instance. There are only two instances where double jeopardy attaches notwithstanding dismissal with the express consent of the accused: first, where the ground for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution; and second, where the criminal proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial. Neither situation exists. There is no legal impediment to reinstatement of Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426.

• Right to Appeal Is Statutory and Must Be Perfected Within the Reglementary Period — The right to appeal is statutory; a party must comply with the rules, particularly the statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period, because these rules are indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly judicial business. Applied: the petition was filed four days late and lacked the required affidavit of service, so the SC denied it.
• Sufficiency of an Information — An Information is sufficient if it states the designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Applied: the Information alleged violation of the Social Security Law and failure to remit SSS, Medicare, and Employees Compensation contributions.
• DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement Is Not a Rule or Regulation Requiring Presidential Approval — A memorandum of agreement that records the understanding between the SSS and DOLE that the DOLE would include an SSS coverage stipulation in the Standard Contract of Employment is not an implementing rule or regulation under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 1161 and does not require presidential approval; it relates to administrative convenience. Applied: the Memorandum of Agreement was valid, especially as it was approved by Social Security Commission Resolution No. 437 dated 14 July 1988.
• Section 8(j)(5) Defines Employment, Not SSS Coverage — The exclusion of service on an alien vessel outside the Philippines from the definition of “employment” does not absolutely exempt Filipino seafarers from SSS coverage; coverage is governed by Section 9, and Section 9(b) allows voluntary coverage of Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for employment abroad. Applied: the Memorandum of Agreement was in line with Section 9(b), and coverage arose through the Standard Contract of Employment.
• Contract Assent as Basis for SSS Coverage of Filipino Seafarers — The Standard Contract of Employment is the instrument by which foreign shipowners express assent to the inclusion of Filipino seafarers in SSS coverage; the extension of coverage arises from the assent given in the contract signed by employer and seafarer, and the same contract binds the local employer solidarily liable with the foreign shipowner. Applied: petitioner Sta. Rita or B. Sta. Rita Company was bound.
• Double Jeopardy Does Not Attach Where Dismissal Is at the Accused’s Instance, Except in Two Cases — Double jeopardy will not attach where the case is dismissed with the express consent of the accused, except (1) where the ground for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution, and (2) where the criminal proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial. Applied: the RTC dismissed at petitioner’s own instance and neither exception existed, so reinstatement was proper.
• Labor Protection Extends to Overseas Workers — The constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor covers labor “local or overseas”; extending social security benefits to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels gives effect to this mandate. Applied: nullifying the Memorandum of Agreement and the SSS stipulation would be serious reversible error.

• “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.” — The SC used this rule to deny the petition for late filing and noncompliance with court circulars.
• “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.” — The SC rejected the claim that Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels were absolutely exempt from SSS coverage.
• “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.” — The SC explained that SSS coverage of Filipino seafarers arose from the contract of employment, binding the local employer solidarily liable with the foreign shipowner.
• “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.” — The SC held that reinstatement of the criminal case did not violate double jeopardy because the dismissal was at petitioner’s own instance and neither exception applied.

• Spouses Gil and Elma del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113890 (1995) — Cited for the rule that the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in accordance with the rules.
• Bank of America, NT & SA vs. Gerochi, Jr., 230 SCRA 9 (1994) — Cited for the rule that the statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period must be strictly followed as an indispensable interdiction against needless delays.
• People vs. Quizada, 160 SCRA 516 (1988) — Cited for the two instances where double jeopardy attaches despite dismissal with the express consent of the accused.

• Section 2(a), in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e), Republic Act No. 1161, as amended — The Information charged petitioner with violating these provisions by failing to remit SSS, Medicare, and Employees Compensation contributions for covered employees; the SC held the Information sufficient.
• Section 4(a), Republic Act No. 1161, as amended — The Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations subject to the approval of the President. The SC held the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement was not such a rule or regulation, so presidential approval was not required; the Memorandum of Agreement was approved by Social Security Commission Resolution No. 437 dated 14 July 1988.
• Section 8(j)(5), Republic Act No. 1161, as amended — Defines “employment” and excludes service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if employed when the vessel is outside the Philippines. The SC held it does not absolutely exempt Filipino seafarers from SSS coverage.
• Section 9(a) and (b), Republic Act No. 1161, as amended — Section 9(a) makes SSS coverage compulsory upon all employees not over sixty years of age and their employers; Section 9(b) provides that Filipinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign-based employers for employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis. The SC held the Memorandum of Agreement was in line with Section 9(b).
• Article XIII, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Mandates protection to labor, whether local or overseas. The SC invoked it to support extending social security benefits to Filipino seafarers.
• Rule 117, Section 7, Rules of Court — Governs double jeopardy. The SC held reinstatement did not violate it because the dismissal was at petitioner’s own instance and neither exception applied.
• Circular No. 1-88, as amended, and Circular No. 19-91 — Require an affidavit of service; the petition failed to comply, and the affidavit was submitted only on 14 July 1995.