12.

MENDOZA V PEOPLE petitioner’s conviction for his failure to remit the Social Security Service (SSS)
G.R. No. 183891. October 19, 2011.* contributions of his employees. The petitioner anchors the present motion on his sup-
ROMARICO J. MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. 683posed inclusion within the coverage of Republic Act (RA) No. 9903 or the Social
Social Security Act; Condonation; The clear intent of the law is to grant condonation Security Condonation Law of 2009, whose passage the petitioner claims to be
only to employers with delinquent contributions or pending cases for their a supervening event in his case. He further invokes the equal protection clause in support
delinquencies and who pay their delinquencies within the six (6)-month period set by the of his motion.
law. Mere payment of unpaid contributions does not suffice.—We note that the petitioner In our Decision dated August 3, 2010, we AFFIRMED, with modification, the decree
does not ask for the reversal of his conviction based on the authority of RA No. 9903; he of conviction issued by both the trial and appellate courts for the petitioner’s violation of
avoids making a straightforward claim because this law plainly does not apply to him or Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of RA No. 8282 or the Social Security Act
to others in the same situation. The clear intent of the law is to grant condonation only to of 1997. To recall its highlights, our Decision emphasized that the petitioner readily
employers with delinquent contributions or pending cases for their admitted during trial that he did not remit the SSS premium contributions of his
delinquencies and who pay their delinquencies within the six (6)-month period set by employees at Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. from August 1998 to July 1999, in the
the law. Mere payment of unpaid contributions does not suffice; it is payment within, and amount of P239,756.80; inclusive of penalties, this unremitted amount totaled to
only within, the six (6)-month availment period that triggers the applicability of RA No. P421,151.09. The petitioner’s explanation for his failure to remit, which the trial court
9903. disbelieved, was that during this period, Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. shut down as
_______________ a result of the general decline in the economy. The petitioner pleaded good faith and lack
* SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION. of criminal intent as his defenses.
682 We ruled that the decree of conviction was founded on proof beyond reasonable
Same; Same; By paying outside of the availment period, the petitioner effectively doubt, based on the following considerations: first, the remittance of employee
placed himself outside the benevolent sphere of RA No. 9903.—The petitioner’s case was contributions to the SSS is mandatory under RA No. 8282; and second, the failure to
pending with us when RA No. 9903 was passed. Unfortunately for him, he paid his comply with a special law being malum prohibitum, the defenses of good faith and lack of
delinquent SSS contributions in 2007. By paying outside of the availment period, the criminal intent are immaterial.
petitioner effectively placed himself outside the benevolent sphere of RA No. 9903. This The petitioner further argued that since he was designated in the Information as a
is how the law is written: it condones employers — and only those employers — with “proprietor,” he was without criminal liability since “proprietors” are not among the
unpaid SSS contributions or with pending cases who pay within the six (6)-month period corporate officers specifically enumerated in Section 28(f) of RA No. 8282 to be
following the law’s date of effectivity. Dura lex, sed lex. criminally liable for the violation of its provisions. We rejected this argument based on
Same; Same; Two classifications of employers delinquent in remitting the Social our ruling in Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection.1 We ruled that to
Security System (SSS) contributions of their employees; Laws granting condonation sustain the petitioner’s argument would be to allow the unscrupulous to conveniently
constitute an act of benevolence on the government’s part, similar to tax amnesty laws; escape liability merely through the creative use of managerial titles.
their terms are strictly construed against the applicants.—RA No. 9903 creates two _______________
classifications of employers delinquent in remitting the SSS contributions of their 1 G.R. No. 170735, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 456.
employees: (1) those delinquent employers who pay within the six (6)-month period 684After taking into account the Indeterminate Penalty Law and Article 315 of the
(the former group), and (2) those delinquent employers who pay outside of this Revised Penal Code, we MODIFIEDthe penalty originally imposed by the trial court2 and,
availment period (the latter group). The creation of these two classes is obvious and instead, decreed the penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
unavoidable when Section 2 and the last proviso of Section 4 of the law are read as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
together. The same provisions show the law’s intent to limit the benefit of condonation In the present motion for reconsideration, the petitioner points out that pending his
to the former group only; had RA No. 9903 likewise intended to benefit the latter group, appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA), he voluntarily paid the SSS the amount of
which includes the petitioner, it would have expressly declared so. Laws granting P239,756.80 to settle his delinquency.3 Note that the petitioner also gave notice of this
condonation constitute an act of benevolence on the government’s part, similar to tax payment to the CA via a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for New Trial.Although
amnesty laws; their terms are strictly construed against the applicants. the People did not contest the fact of voluntary payment, the CA nevertheless denied the
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court. said motions.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. The present motion for reconsideration rests on the following points:
First. On January 7, 2010, during the pendency of the petitioner’s case before the
RESOLUTION Court, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed RA No. 9903 into law. RA No. 9903
mandates the effective withdrawal of all pendingcases against employers who would
BRION, J.: remit their delinquent contributions to the SSS within a specified period, viz., within six
We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza months after the law’s effectivity.4 The
seeking the reversal of our Decision dated August 3, 2010. The Decision affirmed the _______________

Page 1 of 4
 2 The penalty originally imposed was six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years We note that the petitioner does not ask for the reversal of his conviction based on
of imprisonment. the authority of RA No. 9903; he avoids making a straightforward claim because this law
3 SSS Special Bank Receipt No. 918224 is attached to the present motion as Annex plainly does not apply to him or to others in the same situation. The clear intent of the
“A”; Rollo, p. 278. law is to grant condonation only to employers with delinquent contributions or pending
4 Section 2. Condonation of Penalty.—Any employer who is delinquent or has not cases for their delinquencies and who pay their delinquencies within the six (6)-month
remitted all contributions due and payable to the Social Security System (SSS), including period set by the law. Mere payment of unpaid contributions does not suffice; it is
those with pending cases either before the Social Security Commission, courts or Office payment within, and only within, the six (6)-month availment period that triggers the
of the Prosecutor involving collection of contributions and/or penalties, may within six applicability of RA No. 9903.
(6) months from the effectivity of this Act: (a) remit said contributions; or (b) submit a True, the petitioner’s case was pending with us when RA No. 9903 was passed.
proposal to pay the same in installments, subject to the implementing rules and Unfortunately for him, he paid his delinquent SSS contributions in 2007. By paying
regulations which the Social Security Commission may prescribe: Provided, That the outside of the availment period, the petitioner effectively placed himself outside the
delinquent employer submits the corresponding collection lists together with the benevolent sphere of RA No. 9903. This is how the law is written: it condones employers
remittance or proposal to pay installments: Provided, further, That upon approval and — and only those employers — with unpaid SSS contributions or with pending
payment in full or in installments of contributions due and payable to the SSS, all such cases who pay within the six (6)-month period following the law’s date of
pending cases filed against the employer shall be effectivity. Dura lex, sed lex.
685petitioner claims that in view of RA No. 9903 and its implementing rules, the The petitioner’s awareness that RA No. 9903 operates as discussed above is
settlement of his delinquent contributions in 2007 entitles him to an acquittal. He apparent in his plea for equal protection. In his motion, he states that
invokes the equal protection clause in support of his plea. “[he] is entitled under the equal protection clause to the dismissal of the case against him
Second. The petitioner alternatively prays that should the Court find his above since he had already paid the subject delinquent contributions due to the SSS which
argument wanting, he should still be acquitted since the prosecution failed to prove all accepted the payment as borne by the official receipt it issued (please see Annex “A”).
the elements of the crime charged. The equal protection clause requires that similar subjects, [sic] should not be treated
Third. The petitioner prays that a fine be imposed, not imprisonment, should he be differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.
found guilty. The petitioner is no more no less in the same situation as the employer who would enjoy
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation In Lieu of Comment and claims that the freedom from criminal prosecution upon payment in full of the delinquent contribu-
passage of RA No. 9903 constituted a supervening event in the petitioner’s case 687tions due and payable to the SSS within six months from the effectivity of Republic
that supports the petitioner’s acquittal “[a]fter a conscientious review of the case.”5 Act No. 9903.”6
The Court cannot amplify the scope of RA No. 9903 on the ground of equal
The Court’s Ruling protection, and acquit the petitioner and other delinquent employers like him; it would
in essence be an amendment of RA No. 9903, an act of judicial legislation abjured by
The petitioner’s arguments supporting his prayer for acquittal fail to convince us. the trias politica principle.7
However, we find basis to allow waiver of the petitioner’s liability for accrued penalties. RA No. 9903 creates two classifications of employers delinquent in remitting the SSS
The petitioner’s liability for the contributions of their employees: (1) those delinquent employers who pay withinthe six
crime is a settled matter (6)-month period (the former group), and (2) those delinquent employers who
Upfront, we reject the petitioner’s claim that the prosecution failed to prove all the pay outside of this availment period (the latter group). The creation of these two classes
elements of the crime charged. This is a matter that has been resolved in is obvious and unavoidable when Section 2 and the last proviso of Section 4 8 of the law
our Decision, and the petitioner did not raise anything substantial to merit the reversal of are read together. The same provisions show the law’s intent to limit the benefit of
our finding of guilt. To reiterate, the petitioner’s conviction was based on his admission condonation to the former group only; had RA No. 9903 likewise intended to benefit the
that he failed to remit his employees’ contribution to the SSS. latter group, which includes the petitioner, it would have expressly declared so. Laws
_______________ granting condonation constitute an act of benevolence on the government’s part, similar
withdrawn without prejudice to the refiling of the case in the event the employer to tax amnesty laws; their terms are strictly construed against the applicants. Since the
fails to remit in full the required delinquent contributions or defaults in the payment of law itself excludes the class of employers to which the petitioner belongs, no ground
any installment under the approved proposal. _______________
5 Rollo, p. 355. 6 Citing Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993,
686 227 SCRA 70, id., at pp. 563-564.
The petitioner cannot benefit from the terms 7 Refers to the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of the
of RA No. 9903, which condone only employ- government.
ers who pay their delinquencies within six 8 Section 4. Effectivity of Condonation.—The penalty provided under Section 22(a)
months from the law’s effectivity of Republic Act No. 8282 shall be condoned by virtue of this Act when and until all the

Page 2 of 4
delinquent contributions are remitted by the employer to the SSS: Provided, That, in case We realize that with the affirmation of the petitioner’s conviction for violation of RA
the employer fails to remit in full the required delinquent contributions, or defaults in No. 8282, he stands to suffer imprisonment for four (4) years and two (2) months
the payment of any installment under the approved proposal, within the availment of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as
period provided in this Act, the penalties are deemed reimposed from the time the maximum, notwithstanding the payment of his delinquent contribution.
contributions first become due, to accrue until the delinquent account is paid in Under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,12 the courts are bound to apply the law as
full: Provided, further, That for reason of equity, employers who settled arrears in it is and impose the proper penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The same
contributions before the effectivity of this Act shall likewise have their accrued penalties provision, however, gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions
waived. [italics ours] it deems appro-
688exists to justify his acquittal. An implementing rule or regulation must conform to _______________
and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute; it cannot amend the law 12 Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
either by abridging or expanding its scope.9 which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.—Whenever a court
For the same reason, we cannot grant the petitioner’s prayer to impose a fine in lieu has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
of imprisonment; neither RA No. 8282 nor RA No. 9903 authorizes the Court to exercise punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
this option. Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
On the matter of equal protection, we stated in Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, et believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
al.10 that the guarantee simply means “that no person or class of persons shall be denied In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
same place and in like circumstances.” In People v. Cayat,11 we further summarized the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
jurisprudence on equal protection in this wise: result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
“It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. 690priate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive.
And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) Although the petitioner was convicted under a special penal law, the Court is not
must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing precluded from giving the Revised Penal Code suppletory application in light of Article
conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.” 1013 of the same Code and our ruling in People v. Simon.14
The difference in the dates of payment of delinquent contributions provides a WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza’s
substantial distinction between the two classes of employers. In limiting the benefits of motion for reconsideration. The Court AFFIRMS the petitioner’s conviction for violation
RA No. 9903 to delinquent employers who pay within the six (6)-month period, the of Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8282, and the
legislature refused to allow a sweeping, non-discriminatory condonation petitioner is thus sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two
to all delinquent employers, lest the policy behind RA No. 8282 be undermined. (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
The petitioner is entitled to a waiver of his accrued penalties temporal, as maximum. In light of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9903, the petitioner’s
Despite our discussion above, the petitioner’s move to have liability for accrued penalties is considered WAIVED. Considering the circumstances of
our Decision reconsidered is not entirely futile. The one benefit the peti- 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.
9 Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No. 152048, April 7, SO ORDERED.
2009, 584 SCRA 110, 121-122. Peralta, Bersamin, Abad and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
10 90 Phil. 83, 90 (1951). Motion for Reconsideration partly granted.
11 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1939). _______________
689tioner can obtain from RA No. 9903 is the waiver of his accrued penalties, which 13 Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.—Offenses which
remain unpaid in the amount of P181,394.29. This waiver is derived from the last are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the
proviso of Section 4 of RA No. 9903: provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
Provided, further, That for reason of equity, employers who settled arrears in should specially provide the contrary.
contributions before the effectivity of this Act shall likewise have their accrued penalties 14 G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, 574, which states:
waived. The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in
This proviso is applicable to the petitioner who settled his contributions long before the Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical
passage of the law. Applied to the petitioner, therefore, RA No. 9903 only works to allow impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary
a waiver of his accrued penalties, but not the reversal of his conviction. application.
Referral to the Chief Executive for Since neither RA No. 8282 nor RA No. 9903 prohibits the application of the Revised
possible exercise of executive clemency Penal Code, the provisions of the Code may be applied suppletorily.

Page 3 of 4
 691
Note.—A hacienda administrator could be considered an employer within the scope
of the Social Security Act of 1954. (Social Security Commission vs. Alba, 559 SCRA 477
[2008])

——o0o——

Page 4 of 4