Monday, November 25, 2013

Buaya v. RTC Judge Polo and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation [Jan 26, 1989]

Nature: instant petition for certiorari, seeks to annul and set aside the orders of denial issued by RTC Manila, Branch XIX on her Motion to Quash/Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration The Motion to Dismiss was anchored on the following grounds
o    (a) the court has no jurisdiction over the case and
o    (b) the subject matter is purely civil in nature.

Facts:
·         Solemnidad M. Buaya was an insurance agent who was authorized to transact and collect the premiums for CBIC.
·         Buaya is required to account and remit premium collections to the principal office of private respondent located in the City of Manila.
·         An audit showed a shortage in the amount of P358,850.72.
·         She was charged with estafa before the RTC-Manila.
·         She filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by respondent Judge. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of denial was also denied.
·         Buaya:
o    Manila RTC has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds she allegedly misappropriated were collected in Cebu City.
o    Subject matter is purely civil in nature because the fact that CBIC separately filed a civil case involving the same alleged misappropriated amount.
·         CBIC:
o    Denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and it cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order rendered (See. 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court).
o    Procedure to be followed is to enter a Plea, go to trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment (Newsweek Inc. v. IAC)
Issue/Held:
1. WON denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and it cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order rendered?
·         As a general rule, YES, but there are exceptions because it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.
2. WON the Manila RTC has jurisdiction?
Allegations of complaint as basis
·         YES. Jurisdiction of court is based on the COMPLAINT.
·         Averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried (Balite v. People).
·         The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after the trial (People v. Mission, 87 Phil. 641).
Essential Elements of a crime
·         Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court:
o    In all criminal — prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place.
·         Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. The failure to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.

Dispositive: Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. Remanded to RTC.

0 comments:

Post a Comment