Ambassador Hotel, Inc. v. Social Security System

I — Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions

Subject Home

16px

← Back to week overview

Primary source ↗Next: Chiok v. PeopleNext case→

Title

Ambassador Hotel, Inc. v. Social Security System

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 194137 June 21, 2017

Core Doctrine

When a criminal action is instituted against a corporate employer's managing head, director, or partner for a special-law offense (here, non-remittance of SSS contributions under R.A. No. 8282), the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from that offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action as against the corporate employer itself, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (Sec. 1, Rule 111). Extinction of the penal action (e.g., by acquittal of the individually-charged officer) does not carry with it extinction of the civil action against the employer, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (last par., Sec. 2, Rule 111) — the same extinguishing-clause test more fully developed in this Week 4 batch's Group V cases. Where a special law (like R.A. No. 8282) makes a corporation's managing head, directors, or partners criminally liable "for the offense" committed by or through the corporation, the arrest of that managing head is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation itself for purposes of the criminal action (and its impliedly-instituted civil aspect) — a juridical entity cannot itself be arrested, so an arrest on its statutorily-designated representative suffices, and no separate summons on the corporation is required. Once jurisdiction over the person of the accused (and, derivatively, the employer) attaches, it is not lost by a subsequent development at trial (such as the individual officer's acquittal on a personal, individualized defense) — jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the Information as filed, not by the outcome of the evidence presented at trial.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194137)

Case DigestWeek 4 - Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action

Ambassador Hotel, Inc. v. Social Security System

G.R. No. 194137 · June 21, 2017 · Second Division

I — Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions

Petitioner: Ambassador Hotel, Inc.Respondent: Social Security System

Core Doctrine

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

I. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jun2017/gr_194137_2017.html

Facts

In September 2001 the Social Security System complained to the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions from June 1999 to March 2001, totalling ₱769,575.48 with penalties.
On January 28, 2004 an Information was filed in the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218 charging Yolanda Chan, President and Chairman of the Board, and Alvin Louie Rivera, Treasurer, under Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of R.A. No. 8282. Only Yolanda was arrested; she pleaded not guilty. The Hotel itself was never served with summons — that omission is the jurisdictional issue.
For the prosecution, SSS Accounts Officer Maria Rezell C. De Ocampo proved the delinquency assessment, the billing and final demand letters, the Hotel's own submission of a list of unpaid contributions and request for installment payment without tendering postdated checks, and a final computation of ₱303,459.00 in contributions plus ₱531,341.44 in penalties as of January 2, 2005. Former hotel president Simeon Nicolas Chan, Yolanda's father, also testified.
Yolanda's defence was personal to her: elected President on April 25, 1998, she was prevented by her father from assuming office; she sued him for grave coercion and threats while he sued to nullify the meeting that elected her; RTC Branch 46 ruled in her favour, and only from its April 10, 2001 Order did she assume the presidency without impediment. So for the entire charged period she was not performing presidential functions.
On December 20, 2005 the RTC held she could not be criminally liable, not being the "managing head" under Section 28(f) for the relevant period — but ruled that her acquittal did not absolve the Hotel, and ordered it to pay SSS ₱584,804.00.
The Hotel appealed the civil aspect only, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person.
On July 29, 2010 the CA affirmed in toto, denying reconsideration on October 18, 2010.
On June 21, 2017 the Second Division, through Justice Mendoza, denied the petition and added 6% interest per annum from finality.

Issue

Whether the civil action against Ambassador Hotel was properly deemed instituted with the criminal action against its officer, so that its liability for unremitted contributions survives her acquittal — and whether the RTC acquired and retained jurisdiction over the Hotel though it was never separately served with summons.

Secondary issues. Whether the Hotel was denied due process; and whether the evidence sufficiently established its civil liability.

Ruling

YES on every branch. Since "a juridical entity cannot be the subject of an arrest because it is a mere fiction of law," and Section 28(f) makes the managing head, directors or partners criminally liable "for the offense," "an arrest on its representative is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over it" — no separate summons required. That jurisdiction persisted despite the acquittal, because "the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial," and "[o]nce jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case." And "when the Information was filed with the RTC, the civil action against Ambassador Hotel for the recovery of civil liability arising from the non-remittance of SSS contributions was deemed instituted therein" — the RTC never having declared that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, that action "remains."

Secondary issues. NO — the Hotel's officers were repeatedly notified, its own lawyer testified on its behalf, and it had full opportunity to answer. YES — its evidence went only to Yolanda's non-performance, which "does not justify the nonpayment of SSS contributions"; it never proved payment nor accounted for who should have remitted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 29, 2010 Decision and October 18, 2010 Resolution of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87948 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the judgment award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

R.A. No. 8282 pierces the corporate veil for criminal purposes, making the managing head, directors or partners personally answerable "for the offense" of the corporation's own non-remittance — a corporation "cannot invoke its separate juridical entity to escape its liability for non-payment of SSS contributions."
Because a corporation cannot literally be arrested, the arrest of its statutorily designated representative operates by necessary implication as the means of acquiring jurisdiction over the corporation itself, for both the criminal charge and its impliedly instituted civil aspect.
Jurisdiction is fixed by the Information as filed, not by the results of trial — so an acquittal resting on a fact-specific, individualised defence unrelated to the Hotel's own non-remittance cannot retroactively strip the court of jurisdiction.
The decisive move is under Section 1 and the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111. The acquittal turned entirely on Yolanda's personal non-performance of her office — a defence personal to her — and not on any finding that the Hotel's non-remittance itself did not exist. Those are analytically distinct questions, and only a finding on the second would have extinguished the Hotel's exposure.
On the proof, preponderance favoured SSS: the Hotel showed only who was not running it, never that the contributions were paid.

Doctrine

Implied institution reaches the corporate employer. The civil action against a corporate employer, arising from a special-law offence charged against its managing head, is deemed instituted with the criminal action absent waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing (Section 1, Rule 111). The extinguishing-clause test: extinction of the penal action against the individually charged officer does not extinguish the corporation's civil liability unless the judgment contains a finding that the fact from which that liability might arise did not exist (last par., Section 2, Rule 111). Arrest of the statutorily designated managing head suffices to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation for both aspects. And jurisdiction, once attached on the Information's allegations, is not divested by a later individualised acquittal that leaves the corporate liability untouched.

The civil action against a corporate employer, arising from a special-law offence charged against its managing head, is deemed instituted with the criminal action absent waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing (Section 1, Rule 111).
The extinguishing-clause test: extinction of the penal action against the individually charged officer does not extinguish the corporation's civil liability unless the judgment contains a finding that the fact from which that liability might arise did not exist (last par., Section 2, Rule 111).
Arrest of the statutorily designated managing head suffices to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation for both aspects.
And jurisdiction, once attached on the Information's allegations, is not divested by a later individualised acquittal that leaves the corporate liability untouched.

Limits.

This turns on the statutory design of Section 28(f), R.A. No. 8282, which expressly imputes criminal liability to a corporation's "managing head, directors or partners." Do not over-read it as a general rule that arresting any employee confers jurisdiction over the employer — absent a comparable statutory imputation, it does not.
And note precisely what the civil holding does not depend on: not on Yolanda's guilt or innocence at all, but on whether the Hotel's own non-remittance — a fact independent of who was managing it — was proved by preponderant evidence. That is the sentence to carry into an acquittal-with-civil-liability problem: ask what the acquittal actually found, not that it happened.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Decision directly and centrally applies Sec. 1, Rule 111's implied-institution rule, and the last-paragraph extinguishing-clause test of Sec. 2, to determine whether a corporate employer's civil liability survives the criminal acquittal of its individually-charged officer.
The Social Security System (SSS) filed a criminal complaint against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions (June 1999-March 2001, totaling ₱769,575.48 including penalties). An Information was filed charging Yolanda Chan, as President and Chairman of the Board, and Alvin Louie Rivera, as Treasurer, under R.A. No. 8282; only Yolanda was arrested and arraigned.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Yolanda criminally, finding she was not, in fact, performing the functions of hotel president during the period in question (having been ousted in an internal corporate dispute and only reinstated by a separate RTC ruling), but nonetheless held Ambassador Hotel, Inc. civilly liable for ₱584,804.00 in unremitted contributions, since the acquittal did not include any finding that the fact from which civil liability might arise did not exist. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, and the Hotel's petition to the Supreme Court followed.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding: (1) the arrest of Yolanda, as the Hotel's managing head/representative under R.A. No. 8282, was sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the Hotel itself, with no separate summons required; (2) once acquired, that jurisdiction was not lost merely because Yolanda was later acquitted on her own, individualized defense (that she was not actually functioning as president during the relevant period); (3) the civil action against the Hotel, having been impliedly instituted with the criminal action (no waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing), survived Yolanda's acquittal, since the RTC never found that the fact from which the Hotel's civil liability might arise (its non-remittance) did not exist; and (4) the Hotel was afforded ample due process (repeated notices of delinquency; opportunity to present evidence) and simply failed to substantiate its claim of payment.

Facts

September 2001: The SSS filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office of Quezon City against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions and penalty liabilities for the period June 1999 to March 2001, in the aggregate amount of ₱769,575.48.
January 28, 2004: After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an Information before the RTC (Branch 218, Quezon City) charging Ambassador Hotel, Inc.'s Yolanda Chan (President and Chairman of the Board) and Alvin Louie Rivera (Treasurer and Head of the Finance Department) with violation of Section 22(a), in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e), R.A. No. 8282. Only Yolanda was arrested; upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution evidence: Maria Rezell C. De Ocampo (SSS Accounts Officer) and Simeon Nicolas Chan (former hotel president, Yolanda's father) testified. De Ocampo detailed the hotel's delinquency assessment, billing letters, final demand letter (personally served and by registered mail), the hotel's own submission of a list of unpaid contributions and request for installment payment (without tendering postdated checks), and her final computation: ₱303,459.00 unpaid contributions plus ₱531,341.44 in penalties (as of January 2, 2005).
Defense evidence: Yolanda testified that although elected President on April 25, 1998, her father Simeon prevented her from assuming office; she filed a grave coercion/grave threats case against him, while Simeon filed a separate civil case (injunction, damages, nullity of the corporate meeting that elected her) — RTC Branch 46 ruled in her favor, and per its April 10, 2001 Order, she assumed the presidency without impediment only as of that date. She argued she could not be held criminally liable for non-remittance covering June 1999-March 2001, a period during which she was not, in fact, performing presidential functions.
December 20, 2005: The RTC held Yolanda could not be held criminally liable, since she was not the "managing head" within the purview of Sec. 28(f), R.A. No. 8282, for the relevant period — but ruled that her acquittal did not absolve Ambassador Hotel of its civil liability, and ordered the Hotel to pay SSS ₱584,804.00 (contributions plus 3% monthly penalties).
Ambassador Hotel appealed only the civil liability aspect, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person because it was not a party to the criminal case.
July 29, 2010: The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto, holding SSS contribution payment is mandatory, that every criminal liability carries civil liability, that the Hotel neither waived nor reserved its right to a separate civil case (so it was deemed instituted in the criminal case), that Yolanda's acquittal did not extinguish the civil action since the RTC never declared the fact from which civil liability might arise did not exist, and that the Hotel was not deprived of due process, having been repeatedly notified of its delinquency and the pending case, yet having done nothing to contest its obligation.
October 18, 2010: The CA denied the Hotel's motion for reconsideration.
Ambassador Hotel filed the instant Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court, raising jurisdiction, due process, and validity-of-the-civil-liability-finding as issues.
June 21, 2017: The Supreme Court (Mendoza, J., Second Division) rendered the Decision under digest, denying the petition and affirming with modification (adding 6% per annum interest from finality until full payment).

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Ambassador Hotel, Inc.).

Argued it has a separate and distinct personality from its officers, including Yolanda; that it was neither a party to the criminal case nor served with summons, so the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over it.
Argued it was deprived of due process when the RTC declared it civilly liable despite the trial court's supposed lack of jurisdiction over its person.
Argued the RTC had no right to render an adverse decision against it, not being a party to the criminal action.

B. Respondent (Social Security System).

Countered that under R.A. No. 8282, employers (including juridical entities) that violate their SSS remittance obligations are criminally liable, and that for corporations, it is the managing head who is criminally responsible — since Yolanda, as President, was properly arrested, the RTC thereby acquired jurisdiction over both her and, derivatively, the Hotel.
Argued Yolanda's acquittal did not extinguish the Hotel's civil liability, since it was deemed instituted in the criminal action.
Emphasized the Hotel was given sufficient notice of its delinquency and of the pending case against it.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Was the civil action against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. properly deemed instituted with the criminal action against its officer Yolanda Chan, such that the Hotel's civil liability for unremitted SSS contributions survives Yolanda's criminal acquittal — and did the RTC properly acquire and retain jurisdiction over the Hotel despite it never having been separately served with summons?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether Ambassador Hotel was deprived of due process.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established the Hotel's civil liability for unremitted SSS contributions.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE, Part 1 — YES, jurisdiction over the Hotel was properly acquired via Yolanda's arrest. Since "a juridical entity cannot be the subject of an arrest because it is a mere fiction of law," and Sec. 28(f), R.A. No. 8282 makes the managing head, directors, or partners criminally liable "for the offense," "an arrest on its representative is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over it," with no separate service of summons required.
MAIN ISSUE, Part 2 — YES, jurisdiction persisted despite Yolanda's acquittal. "[T]he jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial." Yolanda's subsequent, individualized acquittal (she was not, in fact, functioning as president during the relevant period) did not retroactively divest the RTC of jurisdiction already properly acquired; "[o]nce jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case."
MAIN ISSUE, Part 3 — YES, the civil action against the Hotel survived Yolanda's acquittal. "[W]hen the Information was filed with the RTC, the civil action against Ambassador Hotel for the recovery of civil liability arising from the non-remittance of SSS contributions was deemed instituted therein." Since "[t]he RTC did not declare in its judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist," the impliedly-instituted civil action against the Hotel "remains."
SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO due-process violation. The Hotel's directors and officers were repeatedly notified of the delinquency and the pending case; its own lawyer testified at trial on its behalf; it was given full opportunity to present its defense and controvert the prosecution's evidence.
SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — YES, civil liability sufficiently established. The Hotel's evidence focused solely on Yolanda's non-performance of presidential duties — sufficient to negate her personal criminal liability, but it "does not justify the nonpayment of SSS contributions"; the Hotel never proved payment or accounted for who, if anyone, should have been responsible for remitting the contributions. Preponderance of evidence favored SSS's claim of ₱584,804.00, plus 6% per annum interest.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 29, 2010 Decision and October 18, 2010 Resolution of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87948 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the judgment award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court established that R.A. No. 8282 pierces the corporate veil for criminal-liability purposes, making the managing head, directors, or partners personally, criminally answerable "for the offense" of the corporation's own non-remittance — a corporation "cannot invoke its separate juridical entity to escape its liability for non-payment of SSS contributions."
Step 2 — Because a corporation cannot literally be arrested, the Court held the arrest of its statutorily-designated representative operates, by necessary implication, as the means of acquiring jurisdiction over the corporation itself for both the criminal charge and its impliedly-instituted civil aspect — no separate summons on the juridical entity is needed or contemplated by the statutory scheme.
Step 3 — The Court applied the settled, general rule that jurisdiction is fixed by the allegations of the Information as filed, not by the results of trial, to reject the Hotel's argument that Yolanda's eventual acquittal (on a fact-specific, individualized defense unrelated to the Hotel's own non-remittance) retroactively stripped the RTC of jurisdiction over the Hotel.
Step 4 — Applying Sec. 1 and the last paragraph of Sec. 2, Rule 111, the Court held the Hotel's civil liability was deemed instituted with the criminal action and survived Yolanda's acquittal, because that acquittal turned entirely on Yolanda's personal non-performance of her office (a defense personal to her), not on any finding that the Hotel's underlying non-remittance itself — the fact from which its civil liability would arise — did not exist. These are analytically distinct questions, and only a finding on the latter would have extinguished the Hotel's civil exposure.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. The civil action against a corporate employer, arising from a special-law offense charged against its managing head, is deemed instituted with the criminal action absent waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing (Sec. 1, Rule 111) — directly on this Topic.
2. Extinction of the penal action against the individually-charged officer does not extinguish the corporate employer's civil liability, unless the judgment includes a finding that the fact from which that civil liability might arise did not exist (last par., Sec. 2, Rule 111) — the extinguishing-clause test applied to a corporate-employer scenario.
3. Arrest of a corporation's statutorily-designated managing head/representative is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation itself, for both criminal and impliedly-instituted civil purposes, in prosecutions under special laws that impute criminal liability to corporate officers.
4. Jurisdiction, once attached based on the Information's allegations, is not divested by a subsequent, individualized acquittal that does not negate the underlying corporate liability.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This ruling turns on the specific statutory design of R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 28(f), which expressly imputes criminal liability to a corporation's "managing head, directors or partners" — it should not be over-read as a general rule that arresting any employee automatically confers jurisdiction over an employer corporation absent a similar statutory imputation.
The Court's civil-liability holding does not depend on Yolanda's guilt or innocence at all; it depends entirely on whether the Hotel's own underlying non-remittance (a fact independent of who, specifically, was managing the hotel at the time) was established by preponderant evidence — which it was.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. This is a clean, modern (2017) illustration of Sec. 1 and Sec. 2's implied-institution and extinction-of-civil-liability rules applied to a corporate-employer/special-penal-law fact pattern, complementing the BP 22-focused institution cases elsewhere in this Week 4 batch.

Separate Opinions

None. Carpio (Acting Chairperson, on official leave), Peralta, Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concurred per the signature block and Attestation; no separate concurring or dissenting opinion is indicated.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Special Law

Section 28(f), R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282

Officer liability for a corporation's offense

Republic Act No. 1161 (Social Security Law), Section 28(f), as amended by Republic Act No. 8282 (1997), Section 1

If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing head, directors or partners shall be liable for the penalties Provided in this Act for the offense.

Cited as R.A. No. 1161 as amended, not as R.A. No. 8282. R.A. No. 8282 is an amending act whose Section 1 rewrites the whole Social Security Law, so every substantive section appears on LawPhil as a quoted "SEC. N." line. The builder cannot parse those without filing the amending act's own housekeeping sections as though they were the Law itself, so this entry is hand-made from the quoted text.

The clause is why SSS delinquency prosecutions reach officers rather than the juridical entity alone: it makes the managing head, directors or partners personally answerable "for the offense" of the corporation. That is a statutory piercing for criminal purposes, and it does not depend on the usual civil-law grounds for disregarding corporate personality — no showing of fraud or alter ego is required.

Superseded. R.A. No. 11199 (Social Security Act of 2018) renumbered and rewrote much of the Law; the corresponding provision is now Section 28(f) of R.A. No. 11199. Check the date of the offense against the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The clause that makes officers answerable for the corporation's offense.

"If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing head, directors or partners shall be liable for the penalties Provided in this Act for the offense."

This is a statutory piercing of the corporate veil for criminal purposes. It does not require the usual civil-law grounds — no fraud, no alter ego, no showing that the corporation is a mere instrumentality.

The reason is practical: a corporation cannot be imprisoned, so a penal statute aimed at corporate conduct must reach natural persons or it reaches nobody. The Act names which persons in advance rather than leaving it to proof.

Note the entry is cited as R.A. No. 1161 as amended, not as R.A. No. 8282 — the latter is the amending act, and citing it for the substance is a common slip.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

Why the unremitted contributions are recovered inside the criminal case.

"When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action" unless the offended party waives, reserves, or has previously instituted it.

The SSS's claim for unremitted contributions and penalties is civil liability arising from the offense, so it rides along with the prosecution automatically.

That is why these judgments order both a penalty and payment of the delinquency — and why the officers held criminally liable under Section 28(f) are also the persons against whom that civil award runs.

Special Law

Article 100, Revised Penal Code

Civil liability of person guilty of felony

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Why it is cited here

The general principle the special law tracks.

"Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."

Although a violation of the Social Security Law is an offense under a special law rather than a felony under the Penal Code, the same structure applies by force of Rule 111, Section 1: the civil liability follows the criminal.

The distinction worth keeping is between the source and the forum. The obligation to remit arises from the statute — one of the Article 1157 sources — and would survive an acquittal on the criminal charge, recoverable in an ordinary collection suit.

So the criminal prosecution is a route to the money, not the only one.

Related notes:

Ching v. Nicdao — fuller development of the "extinction of civil liability requires a specific finding" doctrine applied here.
Heirs of Simon v. Chan / Bernardo v. People — companion Institution-Topic cases involving special-penal-law (BP 22) civil-liability mechanics.
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — institution of criminal and civil actions.
Republic Act No. 8282 — Social Security Act of 1997.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jun2017/gr_194137_2017.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 28(f), R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282

Special Law

Officer liability for a corporation's offense

Republic Act No. 1161 (Social Security Law), Section 28(f), as amended by Republic Act No. 8282 (1997), Section 1

Why it is cited here

The clause that makes officers answerable for the corporation's offense.

Note the entry is cited as R.A. No. 1161 as amended, not as R.A. No. 8282 — the latter is the amending act, and citing it for the substance is a common slip.

Full entry below ↓

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Why it is cited here

Why the unremitted contributions are recovered inside the criminal case.

The SSS's claim for unremitted contributions and penalties is civil liability arising from the offense, so it rides along with the prosecution automatically.

Full entry below ↓

Article 100, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

Civil liability of person guilty of felony

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Why it is cited here

The general principle the special law tracks.

"Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."

So the criminal prosecution is a route to the money, not the only one.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

I. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jun2017/gr_194137_2017.html

Facts

In September 2001 the Social Security System complained to the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions from June 1999 to March 2001, totalling ₱769,575.48 with penalties.
On January 28, 2004 an Information was filed in the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218 charging Yolanda Chan, President and Chairman of the Board, and Alvin Louie Rivera, Treasurer, under Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of R.A. No. 8282. Only Yolanda was arrested; she pleaded not guilty. The Hotel itself was never served with summons — that omission is the jurisdictional issue.
For the prosecution, SSS Accounts Officer Maria Rezell C. De Ocampo proved the delinquency assessment, the billing and final demand letters, the Hotel's own submission of a list of unpaid contributions and request for installment payment without tendering postdated checks, and a final computation of ₱303,459.00 in contributions plus ₱531,341.44 in penalties as of January 2, 2005. Former hotel president Simeon Nicolas Chan, Yolanda's father, also testified.
Yolanda's defence was personal to her: elected President on April 25, 1998, she was prevented by her father from assuming office; she sued him for grave coercion and threats while he sued to nullify the meeting that elected her; RTC Branch 46 ruled in her favour, and only from its April 10, 2001 Order did she assume the presidency without impediment. So for the entire charged period she was not performing presidential functions.
On December 20, 2005 the RTC held she could not be criminally liable, not being the "managing head" under Section 28(f) for the relevant period — but ruled that her acquittal did not absolve the Hotel, and ordered it to pay SSS ₱584,804.00.
The Hotel appealed the civil aspect only, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person.
On July 29, 2010 the CA affirmed in toto, denying reconsideration on October 18, 2010.
On June 21, 2017 the Second Division, through Justice Mendoza, denied the petition and added 6% interest per annum from finality.

Issue

Secondary issues. Whether the Hotel was denied due process; and whether the evidence sufficiently established its civil liability.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 29, 2010 Decision and October 18, 2010 Resolution of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87948 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the judgment award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

R.A. No. 8282 pierces the corporate veil for criminal purposes, making the managing head, directors or partners personally answerable "for the offense" of the corporation's own non-remittance — a corporation "cannot invoke its separate juridical entity to escape its liability for non-payment of SSS contributions."
Because a corporation cannot literally be arrested, the arrest of its statutorily designated representative operates by necessary implication as the means of acquiring jurisdiction over the corporation itself, for both the criminal charge and its impliedly instituted civil aspect.
Jurisdiction is fixed by the Information as filed, not by the results of trial — so an acquittal resting on a fact-specific, individualised defence unrelated to the Hotel's own non-remittance cannot retroactively strip the court of jurisdiction.
The decisive move is under Section 1 and the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111. The acquittal turned entirely on Yolanda's personal non-performance of her office — a defence personal to her — and not on any finding that the Hotel's non-remittance itself did not exist. Those are analytically distinct questions, and only a finding on the second would have extinguished the Hotel's exposure.
On the proof, preponderance favoured SSS: the Hotel showed only who was not running it, never that the contributions were paid.

Doctrine

The civil action against a corporate employer, arising from a special-law offence charged against its managing head, is deemed instituted with the criminal action absent waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing (Section 1, Rule 111).
The extinguishing-clause test: extinction of the penal action against the individually charged officer does not extinguish the corporation's civil liability unless the judgment contains a finding that the fact from which that liability might arise did not exist (last par., Section 2, Rule 111).
Arrest of the statutorily designated managing head suffices to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation for both aspects.
And jurisdiction, once attached on the Information's allegations, is not divested by a later individualised acquittal that leaves the corporate liability untouched.

Limits.

This turns on the statutory design of Section 28(f), R.A. No. 8282, which expressly imputes criminal liability to a corporation's "managing head, directors or partners." Do not over-read it as a general rule that arresting any employee confers jurisdiction over the employer — absent a comparable statutory imputation, it does not.
And note precisely what the civil holding does not depend on: not on Yolanda's guilt or innocence at all, but on whether the Hotel's own non-remittance — a fact independent of who was managing it — was proved by preponderant evidence. That is the sentence to carry into an acquittal-with-civil-liability problem: ask what the acquittal actually found, not that it happened.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Decision directly and centrally applies Sec. 1, Rule 111's implied-institution rule, and the last-paragraph extinguishing-clause test of Sec. 2, to determine whether a corporate employer's civil liability survives the criminal acquittal of its individually-charged officer.
The Social Security System (SSS) filed a criminal complaint against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions (June 1999-March 2001, totaling ₱769,575.48 including penalties). An Information was filed charging Yolanda Chan, as President and Chairman of the Board, and Alvin Louie Rivera, as Treasurer, under R.A. No. 8282; only Yolanda was arrested and arraigned.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Yolanda criminally, finding she was not, in fact, performing the functions of hotel president during the period in question (having been ousted in an internal corporate dispute and only reinstated by a separate RTC ruling), but nonetheless held Ambassador Hotel, Inc. civilly liable for ₱584,804.00 in unremitted contributions, since the acquittal did not include any finding that the fact from which civil liability might arise did not exist. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, and the Hotel's petition to the Supreme Court followed.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding: (1) the arrest of Yolanda, as the Hotel's managing head/representative under R.A. No. 8282, was sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the Hotel itself, with no separate summons required; (2) once acquired, that jurisdiction was not lost merely because Yolanda was later acquitted on her own, individualized defense (that she was not actually functioning as president during the relevant period); (3) the civil action against the Hotel, having been impliedly instituted with the criminal action (no waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing), survived Yolanda's acquittal, since the RTC never found that the fact from which the Hotel's civil liability might arise (its non-remittance) did not exist; and (4) the Hotel was afforded ample due process (repeated notices of delinquency; opportunity to present evidence) and simply failed to substantiate its claim of payment.

Facts

September 2001: The SSS filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office of Quezon City against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions and penalty liabilities for the period June 1999 to March 2001, in the aggregate amount of ₱769,575.48.
January 28, 2004: After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an Information before the RTC (Branch 218, Quezon City) charging Ambassador Hotel, Inc.'s Yolanda Chan (President and Chairman of the Board) and Alvin Louie Rivera (Treasurer and Head of the Finance Department) with violation of Section 22(a), in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e), R.A. No. 8282. Only Yolanda was arrested; upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution evidence: Maria Rezell C. De Ocampo (SSS Accounts Officer) and Simeon Nicolas Chan (former hotel president, Yolanda's father) testified. De Ocampo detailed the hotel's delinquency assessment, billing letters, final demand letter (personally served and by registered mail), the hotel's own submission of a list of unpaid contributions and request for installment payment (without tendering postdated checks), and her final computation: ₱303,459.00 unpaid contributions plus ₱531,341.44 in penalties (as of January 2, 2005).
Defense evidence: Yolanda testified that although elected President on April 25, 1998, her father Simeon prevented her from assuming office; she filed a grave coercion/grave threats case against him, while Simeon filed a separate civil case (injunction, damages, nullity of the corporate meeting that elected her) — RTC Branch 46 ruled in her favor, and per its April 10, 2001 Order, she assumed the presidency without impediment only as of that date. She argued she could not be held criminally liable for non-remittance covering June 1999-March 2001, a period during which she was not, in fact, performing presidential functions.
December 20, 2005: The RTC held Yolanda could not be held criminally liable, since she was not the "managing head" within the purview of Sec. 28(f), R.A. No. 8282, for the relevant period — but ruled that her acquittal did not absolve Ambassador Hotel of its civil liability, and ordered the Hotel to pay SSS ₱584,804.00 (contributions plus 3% monthly penalties).
Ambassador Hotel appealed only the civil liability aspect, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person because it was not a party to the criminal case.
July 29, 2010: The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto, holding SSS contribution payment is mandatory, that every criminal liability carries civil liability, that the Hotel neither waived nor reserved its right to a separate civil case (so it was deemed instituted in the criminal case), that Yolanda's acquittal did not extinguish the civil action since the RTC never declared the fact from which civil liability might arise did not exist, and that the Hotel was not deprived of due process, having been repeatedly notified of its delinquency and the pending case, yet having done nothing to contest its obligation.
October 18, 2010: The CA denied the Hotel's motion for reconsideration.
Ambassador Hotel filed the instant Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court, raising jurisdiction, due process, and validity-of-the-civil-liability-finding as issues.
June 21, 2017: The Supreme Court (Mendoza, J., Second Division) rendered the Decision under digest, denying the petition and affirming with modification (adding 6% per annum interest from finality until full payment).

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Ambassador Hotel, Inc.).

Argued it has a separate and distinct personality from its officers, including Yolanda; that it was neither a party to the criminal case nor served with summons, so the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over it.
Argued it was deprived of due process when the RTC declared it civilly liable despite the trial court's supposed lack of jurisdiction over its person.
Argued the RTC had no right to render an adverse decision against it, not being a party to the criminal action.

B. Respondent (Social Security System).

Countered that under R.A. No. 8282, employers (including juridical entities) that violate their SSS remittance obligations are criminally liable, and that for corporations, it is the managing head who is criminally responsible — since Yolanda, as President, was properly arrested, the RTC thereby acquired jurisdiction over both her and, derivatively, the Hotel.
Argued Yolanda's acquittal did not extinguish the Hotel's civil liability, since it was deemed instituted in the criminal action.
Emphasized the Hotel was given sufficient notice of its delinquency and of the pending case against it.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Was the civil action against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. properly deemed instituted with the criminal action against its officer Yolanda Chan, such that the Hotel's civil liability for unremitted SSS contributions survives Yolanda's criminal acquittal — and did the RTC properly acquire and retain jurisdiction over the Hotel despite it never having been separately served with summons?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether Ambassador Hotel was deprived of due process.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established the Hotel's civil liability for unremitted SSS contributions.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE, Part 1 — YES, jurisdiction over the Hotel was properly acquired via Yolanda's arrest. Since "a juridical entity cannot be the subject of an arrest because it is a mere fiction of law," and Sec. 28(f), R.A. No. 8282 makes the managing head, directors, or partners criminally liable "for the offense," "an arrest on its representative is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over it," with no separate service of summons required.
MAIN ISSUE, Part 2 — YES, jurisdiction persisted despite Yolanda's acquittal. "[T]he jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial." Yolanda's subsequent, individualized acquittal (she was not, in fact, functioning as president during the relevant period) did not retroactively divest the RTC of jurisdiction already properly acquired; "[o]nce jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case."
MAIN ISSUE, Part 3 — YES, the civil action against the Hotel survived Yolanda's acquittal. "[W]hen the Information was filed with the RTC, the civil action against Ambassador Hotel for the recovery of civil liability arising from the non-remittance of SSS contributions was deemed instituted therein." Since "[t]he RTC did not declare in its judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist," the impliedly-instituted civil action against the Hotel "remains."
SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO due-process violation. The Hotel's directors and officers were repeatedly notified of the delinquency and the pending case; its own lawyer testified at trial on its behalf; it was given full opportunity to present its defense and controvert the prosecution's evidence.
SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — YES, civil liability sufficiently established. The Hotel's evidence focused solely on Yolanda's non-performance of presidential duties — sufficient to negate her personal criminal liability, but it "does not justify the nonpayment of SSS contributions"; the Hotel never proved payment or accounted for who, if anyone, should have been responsible for remitting the contributions. Preponderance of evidence favored SSS's claim of ₱584,804.00, plus 6% per annum interest.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 29, 2010 Decision and October 18, 2010 Resolution of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87948 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the judgment award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court established that R.A. No. 8282 pierces the corporate veil for criminal-liability purposes, making the managing head, directors, or partners personally, criminally answerable "for the offense" of the corporation's own non-remittance — a corporation "cannot invoke its separate juridical entity to escape its liability for non-payment of SSS contributions."
Step 2 — Because a corporation cannot literally be arrested, the Court held the arrest of its statutorily-designated representative operates, by necessary implication, as the means of acquiring jurisdiction over the corporation itself for both the criminal charge and its impliedly-instituted civil aspect — no separate summons on the juridical entity is needed or contemplated by the statutory scheme.
Step 3 — The Court applied the settled, general rule that jurisdiction is fixed by the allegations of the Information as filed, not by the results of trial, to reject the Hotel's argument that Yolanda's eventual acquittal (on a fact-specific, individualized defense unrelated to the Hotel's own non-remittance) retroactively stripped the RTC of jurisdiction over the Hotel.
Step 4 — Applying Sec. 1 and the last paragraph of Sec. 2, Rule 111, the Court held the Hotel's civil liability was deemed instituted with the criminal action and survived Yolanda's acquittal, because that acquittal turned entirely on Yolanda's personal non-performance of her office (a defense personal to her), not on any finding that the Hotel's underlying non-remittance itself — the fact from which its civil liability would arise — did not exist. These are analytically distinct questions, and only a finding on the latter would have extinguished the Hotel's civil exposure.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. The civil action against a corporate employer, arising from a special-law offense charged against its managing head, is deemed instituted with the criminal action absent waiver, reservation, or prior separate filing (Sec. 1, Rule 111) — directly on this Topic.
2. Extinction of the penal action against the individually-charged officer does not extinguish the corporate employer's civil liability, unless the judgment includes a finding that the fact from which that civil liability might arise did not exist (last par., Sec. 2, Rule 111) — the extinguishing-clause test applied to a corporate-employer scenario.
3. Arrest of a corporation's statutorily-designated managing head/representative is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation itself, for both criminal and impliedly-instituted civil purposes, in prosecutions under special laws that impute criminal liability to corporate officers.
4. Jurisdiction, once attached based on the Information's allegations, is not divested by a subsequent, individualized acquittal that does not negate the underlying corporate liability.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This ruling turns on the specific statutory design of R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 28(f), which expressly imputes criminal liability to a corporation's "managing head, directors or partners" — it should not be over-read as a general rule that arresting any employee automatically confers jurisdiction over an employer corporation absent a similar statutory imputation.
The Court's civil-liability holding does not depend on Yolanda's guilt or innocence at all; it depends entirely on whether the Hotel's own underlying non-remittance (a fact independent of who, specifically, was managing the hotel at the time) was established by preponderant evidence — which it was.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. This is a clean, modern (2017) illustration of Sec. 1 and Sec. 2's implied-institution and extinction-of-civil-liability rules applied to a corporate-employer/special-penal-law fact pattern, complementing the BP 22-focused institution cases elsewhere in this Week 4 batch.

Separate Opinions

None. Carpio (Acting Chairperson, on official leave), Peralta, Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concurred per the signature block and Attestation; no separate concurring or dissenting opinion is indicated.