Dear PAO,
I started a small business six months ago. Unfortunately, I have yet to register in the Social Security System (SSS). My employee told me that I will be automatically prosecuted under the SSS law for non-registration. Is this legally true?
Sonny
Dear Sonny,
No, automatic prosecution or conviction for non-registration is not provided for under the Social Security System (SSS) Law in the Philippines, which is Republic Act (RA) 11199.
Verily, Section 28(e) of RA 11199, otherwise known as “the Social Security Act of 2018,” provides for the criminal liability of those who fail or refuse to comply with the registration requirements.
However, in Gabrillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 275194, July 07, 2026, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Supreme Court emphasized that the service of a prior demand to comply with the registration requirement is a necessary prerequisite before a criminal action may be instituted for violation of Section 28(e) of the SSS Law, saying:
“Section 28(e) penalizes the failure or refusal of an employer to comply with the registration obligations imposed under the law. This is also the same term used in the superseding law, Republic Act No. 11199, or the Social Security Act of 2018. On this note, the term “refusal” carries a legal meaning that necessarily implies the existence of a prior demand to comply. As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, refusal is “the denial or rejection of something offered or demanded.” It is also defined as the “declination of a request or demand, or the omission to comply with some requirement of law, as the result of a positive intention to disobey. xxx”
“Plainly, one cannot be said to have refused an obligation that has not first been demanded. This interpretation is consistent with the fundamental principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
“Moreover, requiring proof of a prior demand accords with the regulatory character of the SSS Law. While the statute provides penal sanctions for non-compliance, its primary objective is to secure coverage and ensure the protection of employees under the SSS, rather than to punish employers without first affording them an opportunity to rectify their omission.
“Accordingly, for purposes of criminal prosecution under Section 28(e) of the SSS Law, the prosecution must establish that the employer was first served with a Coverage Letter with Demand requiring compliance with the obligation to register the employer and its employees with the SSS. Only upon the employer’s failure or refusal to comply with such demand may criminal liability attach.”
In your case, since a prior demand to comply with SSS registration is yet to be served, criminal liability is yet to attach upon you. Thus, prosecuting you for the violation of the SSS Law would be premature and unmeritorious. However, it is always important to be on your toes in complying with your statutory obligations in order to prevent unnecessary delays/disruptions in the operation of your business, as well as incurring liabilities.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
