Nature: petition
for review on certiorari to
challenge the twin resolutions of the CA which dismissed the petitioner's
petition for certiorari and
denied his motion for reconsideration
Facts:
·
Jimenez is the president of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation, a local manning agency.
·
Socrates Antzoulatos, Carmen Alamil, Marceli
Gaza, and Markos Avgoustis (respondents) are some of the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime
Services, Inc. (TMSI), a local
manning agency.
·
On August 19, 2003, the petitioner filed a
complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
City against the respondents for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment. The petitioner alleged that the
respondents falsely represented their
stockholdings in TMSI’s articles of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).
·
On October 9, 2003, respondents Antzoulatos and
Gaza filed their joint counter-affidavit denying the complaint-affidavit’s
allegations. Respondents Avgoustis and Alamil did not submit any
counter-affidavit.
·
In a May 4, 2004 resolution, the 3rd
Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the filing
of an information for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment
against the respondents. The City Prosecutor approved his recommendation and
filed the corresponding criminal information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Mandaluyong City (docketed as Criminal Case No. MC04-8514 and raffled to
Branch 212) presided by Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali.
·
Subsequently, in a December 14, 2004 resolution,
the City Prosecutor reconsidered the May 4, 2004 resolution and filed a motion with the RTC to withdraw the
information. The petitioner and respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their opposition and comment to
the opposition, respectively.
·
In an August 1, 2005 resolution, the RTC denied the motion to withdraw information
as it found the existence of probable
cause to hold the respondents for trial. Thus, the RTC ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against
the respondents.
·
On August 26, 2005, respondents Antzoulatos and
Gaza filed an omnibus motion for
reconsideration and for deferred enforcement of the warrants of arrest. In
a September 2, 2005 order, the RTC
denied the omnibus motion, reiterating that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case
should be dismissed or not.
·
On September 26, 2005, respondent Alamil filed a
motion for judicial determination of
probable cause with a request to defer enforcement of the warrants of
arrest.
·
On September 29, 2005, the petitioner filed his opposition with motion to expunge, contending
that respondent Alamil, being a fugitive from justice, had no standing to seek any relief and that the RTC, in the August 1,
2005 resolution, already found probable cause to hold the respondents for
trial.
·
In a September 30, 2005 order, the RTC
denied respondent Alamil’s motion for being moot and academic; it ruled that it
had already found probable cause against the respondents in the August 1, 2005
resolution, which it affirmed in the September 2, 2005 order.
·
On October 10, 2005, respondent Alamil moved for
reconsideration and for the inhibition of Judge Capco-Umali, for being biased
or partial. On October 25, 2005, the petitioner filed an opposition with a
motion to expunge, reiterating that respondent Alamil had no standing to seek
relief from the RTC.
·
In a January 4, 2006 order, Judge
Capco-Umali voluntarily inhibited herself from the case and did not resolve
respondent Alamil’s motion for reconsideration and the petitioner’s motion to
expunge.
·
The case was re-raffled to Branch 214, presided by Judge Sorongon.
The RTC Rulings
·
In its March 8, 2006 order, the RTC granted
respondent Alamil’s motion for reconsideration. It treated respondent Alamil’s
motion for judicial determination as a motion to dismiss for lack of probable
cause. It found:
(1) no evidence on record to indicate that
the respondents gave any false
information to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the
POEA; and
(2) that
respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted
to the RTC’s jurisdiction through the filing of pleadings seeking
affirmative relief. Thus, the RTC
dismissed the case, and set aside the earlier issued warrants of arrest.
·
On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for
reconsideration, stressing the existence
of probable cause to prosecute the respondents and that respondent Alamil
had no standing to seek any relief from
the RTC.
·
On April 26, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to
expunge the motion for being a prohibited pleading since the motion did not
have the public prosecutor’s conformity.
·
In its May 10, 2006 order, the RTC denied
the petitioner’s MR, finding that the petitioner merely reiterated arguments in
issues that had been finally decided. The RTC ordered the motion expunged from
the records since the motion did not have the public prosecutor’s conformity.
·
On May 19, 2006, the petitioner filed a notice
of appeal.
·
On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to
expunge the petitioner’s notice of appeal since the public prosecutor did not
authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case.
·
On June 27, 2006, the petitioner filed his
comment to the motion to expunge, claiming
that, as the offended party, he has the right to appeal the RTC order dismissing the case; the respondents’
fraudulent acts in forming TMSI greatly
prejudiced him.27
·
In its August 7, 2006 joint order, the RTC
denied the petitioner’s notice of appeal since the petitioner filed it without
the conformity of the Solicitor General,
who is mandated to represent the People
of the Philippines in criminal actions appealed to the CA. Thus, the RTC
ordered the notice of appeal expunged from the records.
·
On October 18, 2006, the petitioner elevated his
case to the CA via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing
the RTC’s March 8, 2006, May 10, 2006, and August 7, 2006 orders.
The CA Ruling
·
In its November 23, 2006 resolution, the CA dismissed outright the petitioner’s
Rule 65 petition for lack of legal
personality to file the petition on
behalf of the People of the Philippines. It noted that only the Office of the Solicitor General has the legal personality to represent the
People, under Section 35(1), Chapter 12,
Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code.
·
Petitioner was not the real party in interest to institute the case, him not being
a victim of the crime charged to the respondents, but a mere competitor in their recruitment business.
·
Denied the MR that followed.
The Petition
·
Petitioner:
o He
has a legal standing to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since he is
the private complainant and a real party in interest who had been directly
damaged and prejudiced by the respondents’ illegal acts;
o Alamil
has no legal standing to seek any relief from the RTC since she is a fugitive
from justice.
The Case for the Respondents
·
Respondents:
o Petitioner
lacks a legal standing since the power to prosecute lies solely with the State,
acting through a public prosecutor;
o Petitioner
acted independently and without the authority of a public prosecutor in the
prosecution and appeal of the case.
Issues:
1. Whether the CA committed a reversible error
in dismissing outright the petitioner’s
Rule 65 petition for certiorari for lack of legal personality
to file the petition on behalf of the People of the Philippines? NO. Petitioner has no legal standing.
In a criminal case, the real party in interest is the People of the
Philippines.
The petitioner has
no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case
·
"Every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party
in interest" "who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit."
·
Interest means material interest or an interest
in issue to be affected by the
decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved.
·
By real interest is present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy or a consequential
interest.
·
When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a
real party in interest, the suit is dismissible.
·
"All criminal actions commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor."
·
In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and
before this Court, the OSG is the
appellate counsel of the People (Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book
IV of the 1987 Administrative Code)
SEC. 35. Powers
and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers
and functions:
(1) Represent
the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court
and Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions
and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his
official capacity is a party. (emphasis added)
·
The People
is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can
represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this
Court.
·
EXCEPTION: Offended party may be allowed to
pursue the criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is a denial of
due process).
·
The petitioner did not appeal to protect his
alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of the crime, but to cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action against the respondents.
2. WON Alamil is a fugitive
justice and therefore has no right to seek any relief from the RTC?
·
NO. Respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to
the RTC’s jurisdiction
·
One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings constitutes
voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Dispositive: Appeal
Denied. CA Affirmed.
