Is good faith a valid defense in a suit for violating the requirements of RA 1161?
In the case of Tan, Domingo and Lim vs. Ballena et al (GR No. 168111), the respondents who are employees of Footjoy Industrial Corporation filed a joint complaint against the respondents who were all former officers of Footjoy Industrial Corporation. The complaint alleged that the company failed to regularly report the respondent employees for membership at the SSS and to remit their SSS contributions and payment of their SSS loans which were already deducted from their wages which are prohibited under Section 28 (e), (f) and (h) of RA 1161.
The petitioners did not deny the allegations. In fact, they admitted their failure to remit their employees’ contributions and payment of their SSS loans. However, they interposed as a defenses their lack of criminal intent and good faith arguing that they suffered economic difficulties.
The Supreme Court did not give due course to the petitioners’ arguments. The Supreme Court ruled that good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in special laws like the RA 1161 which belongs to a class of offenses known as mala prohibita.
According to the Supreme Court, “The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial. Thus, the petitioners’ admission in the instant case of their violations of the provisions of the SSS Law is more than enough to establish the existence of probable cause to prosecute them for the same.”
