Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    G.R. No. 183891 - October 19, 2011: Romarico Mendoza V. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    itsmesteph
    This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by Romarico Mendoza who was convicted for failing to remit social security contributions of his employees. The Supreme Court denies the motion. It finds that RA 9903, which allows for condonation of delinquencies paid within 6 months, does not apply because Mendoza paid after that period. It also rejects his equal protection claim, finding the law created two valid classes based on payment date. While it affirms the conviction, it recommends executive clemency be granted due to the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 183891 - October 19, 2011: Romarico Mendoza V. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    itsmesteph
    55 views2 pages
    This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by Romarico Mendoza who was convicted for failing to remit social security contributions of his employees. The Supreme Court denies the motion. It finds that RA 9903, which allows for condonation of delinquencies paid within 6 months, does not apply because Mendoza paid after that period. It also rejects his equal protection claim, finding the law created two valid classes based on payment date. While it affirms the conviction, it recommends executive clemency be granted due to the circumstances.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Mendoza v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by Romarico Mendoza who was convicted for failing to remit social security contributions of his employees. The Supreme Court denies the motion. It finds that RA 9903, which allows for condonation of delinquencies paid within 6 months, does not apply because Mendoza paid after that period. It also rejects his equal protection claim, finding the law created two valid classes based on payment date. While it affirms the conviction, it recommends executive clemency be granted due to the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 183891 - October 19, 2011: Romarico Mendoza V. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    itsmesteph
    This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by Romarico Mendoza who was convicted for failing to remit social security contributions of his employees. The Supreme Court denies the motion. It finds that RA 9903, which allows for condonation of delinquencies paid within 6 months, does not apply because Mendoza paid after that period. It also rejects his equal protection claim, finding the law created two valid classes based on payment date. While it affirms the conviction, it recommends executive clemency be granted due to the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ROMARICO MENDOZA v.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    G.R. No. 183891 | October 19, 2011
    Del Castillo, J.

    Doctrine: The guarantee of equal protection simply means that no person or class of persons shall
    be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the
    same place and in like circumstances.

    FACTS
    The present case is a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner assailing the previous
    decision of this Court which affirmed his conviction for his failure to remit the Social Security
    Service (SSS) contributions of his employees.
    The assailed decision affirmed, with modification the ruling of both the RTC and the
    appellate court based on the petitioner’s admission that he did not remit the SSS premium
    contribution of his employees. He claimed that his failure to do so was the shutting down of his
    company due to the decline in the economy. Moreover, since the remittance of SSS employee
    contributions is mandated by a special law, the defense of good faith and lack of criminal intent is
    immaterial.
    On appeal, petitioner now contends the passage of RA 9903 into a law effectively mandates
    the withdrawal of all pending cases against employers who would remit their contributions within
    six months after the effectivity of the law. He avers that he already paid and settled all his
    delinquencies when his case was still pending appeal with the Court of Appeals. He also contends
    that he should be acquitted because of the failure of the prosecution to prove all elements of the
    crime.

    ISSUES AND HOLDING

    1. W/N the accused should be acquitted following the passage of RA 9903- NO.

    The Court in this case reiterated that the liability of the petitioner is already a settled matter
    and the basis for which was his own admission. Nor the passage of the law will benefit him because
    it intends to grant condonation only to those who have pending cases and paid the delinquencies
    within the 6-month period set by the law. It is payment within the prescribe month that would
    trigger the applicability of RA 9903.

    2. W/N there was a violation of the equal protection clause- NO.

    Petitioner also avers the he is entitled to the equal protection of the law since he already
    paid the delinquent contributions and being similarly situated with those who paid within the
    period, he should not be treated differently.

    In dismissing this contention, the Court reiterated that it cannot amplify the scope of the
    law because it would tantamount to an amendment by judicial legislation which is a violation of
    the trias politica principle. Since the law created two classifications of employees and the intent
    of the law was to benefit to only those who will pay within the period prescribed, then no ground

    SERAPIO C2021 | 1
    exists to justify his acquittal. An implementing rule or regulation must be consistent with the
    provisions of the statute, it cannot amend the law either by abridging or expanding its scope.
    Moreover, the guarantee of equal protection simply means that no person or class of
    persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other
    classes in the same place and in like circumstances. In the present case, the difference in the dates
    of payment provides a substantial distinction between the two classes of employers. Also by
    providing the said period, the law refused to allow a sweeping condonation to all delinquent
    employers to the detriment of the policy of RA 8282.

    WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS petitioner Romarico J. Mendozas


    motion for reconsideration. The Court AFFIRMS the petitioners conviction for violation of
    Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8282, and the petitioner is thus
    sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
    correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In light of
    Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9903, the petitioners liability for accrued penalties is
    consideredWAIVED. Considering the circumstances of 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.

    SERAPIO C2021 | 2

    You might also like