Lack of relationship

Failure to remit the compulsory contribution of the employees to the SSS is a violation of the SSS Law (R.A. 1161 as amended by R.A. 8282) that renders the employer criminally liable. Such liability however arises only if there is employer-employee relationship between the complainant and the alleged offender. This is the ruling in this case between Nila and the spouses Jovy and Marie.

Jovy and Marie were the sales representatives of EVR Inc. which was owned by Nila and her family. After voluntarily leaving EVR and signing deeds of release and quitclaim, or on March 27, 2000, Jovy and Marie still filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium pay, service incentive and 13th month pay against Nila and the other officers of EVR Inc.

On September 29, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit since they voluntarily left the company and they were not entitled to the money claims under Article 82, of the Labor Code because they were the company’s field personnel only.

On March 31, 2001, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision and further ruled that the spouses as sales representatives were independent contractors. Therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between them. This NLRC resolution attained finality on December 20, 2001.

Thereafter, the spouses Jovy and Marie filed a complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office against Nila charging the latter with violation of Section 22 [d] in relation to Section 28 [e] for non-remittance of their contributions to the SSS. On January 12, 1001 an Information was filed by the prosecutor before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging Nila for such violation.

On July 3, 2001, Nila filed a motion to quash the Information. She maintained that the factual finding of the NLRC in the illegal dismissal case that Jovy and Marie were not her employees is binding in this case. So, there being no employer-employee relationship, the spouses were not entitled to coverage under R.A. 1161 as amended and she should not be penalized under said law. But the RTC did not grant her motion. Was the RTC correct?

No. Well settled is the rule that the mandatory coverage of R.A. 1161 as amended is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The final and executory NLRC decision to the effect that spouses Jovy and Marie were not the employees of Nila is binding in this criminal case for violation of the SSS law. Any conviction for violation of the SSS Law based on an erroneous premise of the existence of employer-employee relationship would be a violation of Nila’ constitutional rights.

This case squarely falls under the umbrage of res judicata particularly under the rule on “conclusiveness of judgment” which says that when a fact has been once determined in the course of a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered in accordance therewith, it cannot be litigated again between the same parties without virtually impeaching the correctness of the former decision, which, from motives of public policy, the law does not permit to be done. This also applies to a criminal case. Hence the criminal case against Nila should be dismissed (Co vs. People et.al. G.R. 160265, July 13, 2009). –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net