For failure to remit the GSIS contribution totaling P22 million from 1997 to 2004, a criminal case was filed against the Municipal Mayor, Treasurer and Accountant [Section 52 (g) in relation to Section 6 (b) of R.A. 8291].
During the trial, the GSIS branch manager was presented to prove the violation of the GSIS law and that the municipal mayor should be held responsible for non-remittance of the GSIS contribution despite notice.
As defense, the mayor instructed the treasurer to plan the payment thereof, but the municipality ran short of funds due to other legitimate expenses. He thought the Department of Budget and Management is responsible for withholding and paying on the municipality’s behalf the necessary remittances to the GSIS.
While the criminal case was pending, the GSIS and municipality entered a MOA [Memorandum of Agreement] in a civil case, which the court approved. Thus, the mayor argued that he cannot be criminally liable since the MOA treated the municipality’s obligation into a loan. The Sandiganbayan acquitted the municipal accountant but found the mayor guilty and sentenced him to three to five years imprisonment and perpetual disqualification to hold any public office. Aggrieved, the mayor appealed ang argued that he has no criminal intent to violate the GSIS law.
In the case of People v. Talaue G.R. No. 248652, 12 January 2021, our Honorable Supreme Court ruled that Section 52 (g) of the G.S.I.S. Act of 1997 penalizes the heads of the offices of the national government, its political subdivisions, branches, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and government financial institutions, and the personnel of such offices who are involved in the collection of premium contributions, loan amortization and other accounts due the GSIS, who fail, refuse, or delay the payment, turnover, remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within thirty (30) days from the time the same have become due and demandable.
A municipality is a political subdivision of the national government. Talaue, as Municipal Mayor of Sto. Tomas, Isabela, is the head of office of the said Municipality as the chief executive officer thereof. As head of office, he and other employees involved in the collection of GSIS contributions are responsible for the prompt and timely payment or remittance of the said premiums to the GSIS. The task of ensuring the remittance of accounts due the GSIS is, therefore, as much a burden and responsibility of the mayor as it is the burden and responsibility of personnel who are involved in the collection of the said contributions.
Purposely, the Congress included heads of office in the list of those liable in order to create a sense of urgency on their part and deter them from passing the blame to their subordinates. Their liability is construed as waiver of the State of its immunity from suit. Just as the principle of state immunity from suit rests on reasons of public policy, so does waiver thereof in cases of violation of Section 52 (g).
As municipal mayor, the law [Section 444 (a), R.A. 7160 Local Government Code] commands Talaue not only to exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as provided by said Code, but also such duties as may be imposed upon him by other laws, which certainly includes his responsibility under the GSIS Act of 1997. The law also obligates him to ensure all executive officials and employees faithfully discharge their duties and functions and if they fail to do so, to file administrative or judicial proceedings against any municipal official or employee who committed an offense in the performance of his official duties.
If Talaue truly believed that it was primarily the municipal treasurer’s responsibility to remit the contributions of the municipality to the GSIS and that said treasurer was remiss in his duties, he should have filed administrative or judicial proceedings against him. He did not. The fact that premium contributions remained unremitted from 1997 to 2004 should have alerted him, prompted him to make further inquiries and employ a more stringent and hands-on approach, considering that he is made principally liable by the law as head of the municipality.
Considering that a violation of Section 52 [g] is malum prohibitum [acts or omissions that are made crimes because of a special law], it is the commission of that act as defined by law that determines if that provision was violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited by reason of public policy.
