AMBASSADOR HOTEL v. SSS

AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC v. SSS
G.R. No. 194137
June 21, 2017

FACTS:

SSS filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office of Quezon City against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and its officers for non-remittance of SSS contributions and penalty liabilities. After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an Information before the RTC charging Ambassador Hotel, Inc.'s Yolanda Chan (Yolanda), as Pr.

The SSS indeed conducted an investigation as to their non-remittance of contributions. He attempted to locate the records regarding their SSS contributions, but could not find any. Cordon also communicated with the SSS, but it failed to respond and instead filed the present case against them. RTC held that Yolanda could not be held criminally liable for the non-payment of SSS contributions because she was not performing the duties of the hotel's president, Aggrieved, Ambassador Hotel filed an appeal insofar as the civil liability is concerned. It alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person because it was not a party in the said case.

The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. It held that the payment of SSS contributions is mandatory and its non-payment results in criminal prosecution. The appellate court stated that every criminal liability carries with it civil liability. As Ambassador Hotel neither waived nor reserved its right to institute a separate civil case, it was deemed instituted in the criminal case. The CA opined that the acquittal of Yolanda did not extinguish the civil action against Ambassador Hotel as the RTC did not declare that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Moreover, it underscored that Ambassador Hotel was not deprived of due process as its directors and officers were informed numerous times regarding its delinquency and the pending case filed against it. The CA concluded that Ambassador Hotel was given every opportunity to contest its obligation with the SSS yet it did nothing.

ISSUE:

W/N:Lower Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.


RULING:

Ambassador Hotel argued that it has a separate and distinct personality from its officers such as Yolanda; that it was neither a party to the criminal case nor was summons issued against it, hence, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it; that it was deprived due process when the RTC ruled that it was civilly liable for the unpaid SSS contributions even though the trial court had no jurisdiction over its person; and that the RTC had no right to render an adverse decision against it because it was not a party in the criminal action.