Republic of the Philippines coverage of Social Security, Medical Care and Employment Compensation laws to Filipino

SUPREME COURT seafarers on board foreign vessels was null and void as it was entered into by the
Manila Administrator of the SSS without the sanction of the Commission and approval of the
President of the Philippines, in contravention of Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 1161, as
THIRD DIVISION amended. 3

The People, through the Solicitor General, filed in the Court of Appeals a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the order of dismissal issued by the
G.R. No. 119891 August 21, 1995 trial court. Respondent appellate court granted the petition and ordered the Presiding
Judge of the trial court to reinstate the criminal case against petitioner. A motion for
reconsideration thereof was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 17 April 1995.
BEN STA. RITA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SOCIAL SECURITY Thereafter, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for extension of thirty (30) days from
SYSTEM, respondents. the expiration of reglementary period within which to file a petition for review
on certiorari. The Court granted the motion and gave petitioner until 9 June 1995 to file
the petition with warning that no further extension will be given. Despite the warning, the
RESOLUTION
petition was filed only on 13 June 1995 or four (4) days after the due date. Moreover, it
failed to comply with requirement no. 2 of Circular No. 1-88, as amended and Circular No.
FELICIANO, J.:
19-91 of the Court as it did not contain an affidavit of service of copies thereof to
respondents. It was only on 14 July 1995, through an ex-parte manifestation, that the
This is a Petition for Review an Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals ("CA") in affidavit of service was belatedly submitted to this Court.
CA-G.R. SP. No. 34384 which ordered the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 92, Quezon
City, to reinstate Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426 filed against petitioner Ben Sta. Rita.
In the Petition for Review, petitioner Sta. Rita contends that the Filipino seafarers
recruited by B. Sta. Rita Co. and deployed on board foreign vessels outside the Philippines
Petitioner Sta. Rita was charged in the RTC with violating Section 2(a) in relation to are exempt from the coverage of R.A. No. 1161 under Section 8 (j) (5) thereof:
Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, otherwise known as the
Social Security Law. The Information alleged that petitioner, "as President/General
Terms Defined
Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc. a compulsorily (sic) covered employer under the Social
Security Law, as amended, did then and there willfully and unlawfully fail, neglect and
EMPLOYMENT Any service performed by an employee for his employer,
refuse and still fails, neglects and refuses to remit to the Social Security System
except
contributions for SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation for its covered
employees." 1
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner Sta. Rita moved to dismiss said criminal case on the following grounds:
(5) Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if
he is employed when such vessel is outside the Philippines.
1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and;

xxx xxx xxx

According to petitioner, the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the DOLE and
The RTC sustained petitioner's motion and dismissed the criminal case filed against him. It
the SSS is null and void as it has the effect of amending the aforequoted provision of R.A.
ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the Department of
Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Social Security System ("SSS") extending the
No. 1161 by expanding its coverage. This allegedly cannot be done as only Congress may xxx xxx xxx
validly amend legislative enactments.
What the Memorandum of Agreement did was to record the understanding between the
Petitioner prays that the Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the SSS on the one hand and the DOLE on the other hand that the latter would include among
reinstatement of Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426 and that the Order of the RTC dismissing the provisions of the Standard Contract of Employment required in case of overseas
the same be upheld. employment, a stipulation providing for coverage of the Filipino seafarer by the SSS. The
Memorandum of Agreement is not an implementing rule or regulation of the Social
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party Security Commission which, under Section 4 (a) abovequoted, is subject to the approval of
who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the rules. 4 These rules, particularly the the President. Indeed, as a matter of strict law, the participation of the SSS in the
statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period laid down establishment by the DOLE of a uniform stipulation in the Standard Contract of
by law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions Employment for Filipino seafarers was not necessary; the Memorandum of Agreement
against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. 5 Petitioner's failure related simply to the administrative convenience of the two (2) agencies of government.
to seasonably file the Petition and its failure to comply with the aforequoted Circulars of
the Court necessitate the denial of the Petition. Moreover, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's contention that Section 8 (j) (5) of R.A.
No. 1161, as amended, absolutely exempts Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels
Besides, even if the Petition had been filed on time and had complied with the Circulars, it from the coverage of the SSS statute. Section 8 (j) (5) simply defines the term
would still have to be denied as petitioner has failed to show that respondent appellate "employment" and does not in any way relate to the scope of coverage of the Social
court committed any reversible error in rendering the assailed decision. Security System. That coverage is, upon the other hand, set out in Section 9 of R.A. No.
1161 as amended, which defines the scope of SSS coverage in the following terms:
The Court agrees with the CA that the Information filed against petitioner was sufficient
as it clearly stated the designation of the offense by the statute, i.e. violation of the Social Sec. 9 Compulsory Coverage. (a) Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon
Security Law, and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, i.e., all employees not over sixty years of age and their employers; Provided, . . . .
petitioner's failure to remit his contributions to the SSS. The CA found that there is prima
facie evidence to support the allegations in the Information and to warrant the (b) Fillpinos recruited in the Philippines by foreign employers for employment
prosecution of petitioner. abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis. (As amended by Sec. 2,
P.D. No. 177, S-1973 and Sec. 6, P.D. No. 735-S-1975) (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent appellate court correctly upheld the validity of the Memorandum of
Agreement entered into between the DOLE and the SSS. Upon the one hand, contrary to It will be seen that the Memorandum of Agreement is in line with paragraph 9 (b) of the
the trial court's finding, the Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the Social Social Security statute quoted above. The Memorandum of Agreement provides, inter
Security Commission per the Commission's Resolution No. 437, dated 14 July 1988. 6 Upon alia, that:
the other hand, the Memorandum of Agreement is not a rule or regulation enacted by the
Commission in the exercise of the latter's quasi-legislative authority Under Section 4 (a) of xxx xxx xxx
R.A. No. 1161, as amended, which reads as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties
Sec. 4. Powers and Duties of the Commission. For the attainment of its main hereto agree and stipulate that one of the conditions that will be imposed by the
objectives as set forth in section two hereof, the Commission shall have the Department of Labor and Employment is the contract for overseas employment is
following powers and duties: the registration for coverage of seafarers with the Social Security System, through
the manning agencies as the authorized representatives of the foreign employers
(a) To adopt, amend and rescind, subject to the approval of the President, such in conformity with Section 9, paragraph (b) of the Social Security Law (R.A. No.
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and 1161, as amended), subject to the following terms and conditions:
purposes of this Act.
 xxx xxx xxx 7 The Court of Appeals properly held that the reinstatement of the criminal case against
petitioner did not violate his right against double jeopardy since the dismissal of the
(Emphasis supplied) information by the trial court had been effected at his own instance. 10 There are only two
(2) instances where double jeopardy will attach notwithstanding the fact that the case
Thus, the Standard Contract of Employment to be entered into between foreign was dismissed with the express consent of the accused. The first is where the ground for
shipowners and Filipino seafarers is the instrument by which the former express their dismissal is insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution; and the second is where the
assent to the inclusion of the latter in the coverage of the Social Security Act. In other criminal proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the accused's right
words, the extension of the coverage of the Social Security System to Filipino seafarers to speedy trial. 11 Neither situation exists in the case at bar. There is no legal impediment
arises by virtue of the assent given in the contract of employment signed by employer and to the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426 against petitioner Sta. Rita.
seafarer; that same contract binds petitioner Sta. Rita or B. Sta. Rita Company, who is
solidarily liable with the foreign shipowners/employers. WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for having been filed late, for
failure to comply with applicable Court Circulars and for lack of merit. The assailed
It may be noted that foreign shipowners and manning agencies had generally expressed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioner.
their conformity to the inclusion of Filipino seafarers within the coverage of the Social
Security Act even prior to the signing of the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of Agreement. Thus,
the Whereas clauses of the Memorandum of Agreement state that:

WHEREAS, in the 74th Maritime Session (ILO) held from September 24 to

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, after a series of consultations with seafaring unions and manning

xxx xxx xxx 8

(Emphasis supplied)

It is, finally, worthy of special note that by extending the benefits of the Social Security Act
to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels, the individual employment agreements
entered into with the stipulation for such coverage contemplated in the DOLE-SSS
Memorandum of Agreement, merely give effect to the constitutional mandate to the
State to afford protection to labor whether "local or overseas." 9 Nullification of the SSS
stipulation in those individual employment contracts, through nullification of the
Memorandum of Agreement, constituted serious reversible error on the part of the trial
court. That petitioner should seek to deprive his countrymen of social security protection
after his foreign principal had agreed to such protection, is cause for dismay and is to be
deplored.