February 2, 2011: G.R. No. 173846
February 2, 2011: G.R. No. 173846
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the
April 27, 2006 Decision and August 2, 2006 Resolution of the Court of the Appeals (CA).
Facts: On October 15, 2004, Jose Marcel Panlilio, Erlinda Panlilio, Nicole Morris and Marlo Cristobal
(petitioners), as corporate officers of Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (SIHI), filed with the (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 24, a petition for Suspension of Payments and Rehabilitation in SEC Corp. Case. On October 18,
2004, the RTC of Manila, Branch 24, issued an Order staying all claims against SIHI upon finding the petition
sufficient in form and substance.
Finding the petition, together with its annexes, sufficient in form and substance and pursuant to
Section 6, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation, the Court hereby: Stays the enforcement
of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or
otherwise, against the debtor, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor.
However, of the filing of the petition for rehabilitation, there were a number of criminal charges pending
against petitioners in Branch 51 of the RTC of Manila. These criminal charges were initiated by
respondent Social Security System (SSS) and involved charges of violations of Section 28 of Republic Act
8282,(SSS law), in relation to Article 315 (1) (b)[9] of the Revised Penal Code, or Estafa. Consequently,
petitioners filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 51, a Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings.
Petitioners argued that the stay order issued by Branch 24 should also apply to the criminal charges pending
in Branch 51. Petitioners, thus, prayed that Branch 51 suspend its proceedings until the petition for
rehabilitation was finally resolved.
On December 13, 2004, Branch 51 (RTC) issued an Order denying petitioners motion to
suspend the proceedings. It ruled that the stay order issued by Branch 24 did not cover criminal
proceedings. The Court shares the view of the private complainants and the SSS that the said stay order does
not include the prosecution of criminal offenses. Precisely, the law criminalizes the non-remittance of SSS
contributions by an employer to protect the employees from unscrupulous employers. Clearly, in these cases,
public interest requires that the said criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of society. From the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion is that the stay order issued by RTC
Branch 24 does not include the above-captioned cases which are criminal in nature.
Branch 51 denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners.
On August 19, 2005, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the Order of Branch
51. On April 27, 2006, the CA issued a Decision denying the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED and is accordingly DISMISSED. No costs.
The CA discussed that violation of the provisions of the SSS law was a criminal liability and was, thus,
personal to the offender. As such, the CA held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should
not be considered a claim against the corporation and, consequently, not covered by the stay order issued by
Branch 24.Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in a
Resolution dated August 2, 2006.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE STAY ORDER ISSUED BY BRANCH 24, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA,
IN SEC CORP. CASE COVERS ALSO VIOLATION OF SSS LAW FOR NON-REMITTANCE OF PREMIUMS AND
VIOLATION OF [ARTICLE] [3] 515 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Does the suspension of all claims as an
incident to a corporate rehabilitation also contemplate the suspension of criminal charges filed against the
corporate officers of the distressed corporation?
On a final note, this Court would like to point out that Congress has recently enacted Republic Act No.
10142, or the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010. Section 18 thereof explicitly provides
that criminal actions against the individual officer of a corporation are not subject to the Stay or Suspension
Order in rehabilitation proceedings, to wit: The Stay or Suspension Order shall not apply: any criminal
action against individual debtor or owner, partner, director or officer of a debtor shall not be affected by
any proceeding commenced under this Act. Withal, based on the foregoing discussion, this Court rules that
there is no legal impediment for Branch 51 to proceed with the cases filed against petitioners.