5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of the vessel for a fee and it is the shipping company that would remit the salary of the Filipino seafarer including the company's and seafarer's SSS contributions, if so decreed. He said that he saw no problem as far as being jointly and solidarily liable for the civil aspect is concerned, but what he found difficult to accept, he said, is the proposition that the manning agency would be criminally liable for failure to remit the SSS premium because, to him, there must be a finding that it conspired with shipping agency or violated the provisions of the Act either intentionally or through negligence; meaning, there must be an act attributable to the manning agency before becoming criminally liable. He said that equity and fairness dictate that while civilly liable, the manning agency should not be criminally liable unless it commits separate acts of collusion and other acts which would show that it had participation. Senator Gordon agreed that joint and solidary liability should only be limited to the civil aspect, notwithstanding a Supreme Court decision that there is no impediment for filing a criminal complaint against the petitioner for his failure as a manning agent, as held in the case of Ben Sta. Rita vs. Court of Appeals.[49] (emphasis supplied) Thus, contrary to the position of petitioners, the officers of the local manning agencies do not immediately incur criminal liability whenever the foreign principal commits a wrongdoing. Instead, their respective manning agencies must first commit a criminal act before the said officers can be criminally charged. For example, when a foreign principal remitted to the manning agency the required SSS contributions but the latter failed to remit such to the SSS. In that case, the manning agency commits a criminal act, which is a criminal violation of Sec. 28(b) of R.A. No. 11199,[50] because it participated in the illegal act of not remitting the SSS contributions duly given by the foreign principal. In another instance, a manning agency deducted the remittance of the seafarers for the payment of the contributions but it neither reported the seafarers nor remitted their contributions to the SSS. This constitutes as a criminal violation of Sec. 28(e) of R.A. No. 11199[51] because the manning agency did not report the seafarers and remit their contributions to the SSS. Only in those instances, when the manning agency participates in a criminal act, shall the officers of such agency be held criminal liable. In Ching v. Secretary of Justice,[52] the Court explained that when a corporation commits a criminal violation, the law may specifically hold its officers responsible for such offense. The rationale for this rule is that the corporate officers are vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable, to wit: Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law [Presidential Decree No. 115, or the Trust Receipts Law] specifically makes the officers; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 20/28