ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-2004 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123852 - EPITACIO R. TONGOHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126260 - SOUTH PACHEM DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Assn v. Ramos : 127882 : December 1, 2004 : J. Chico-Nazario : En Banc : Concurring Opinion

  • La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Assn v. Ramos : 127882 : December 1, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Separate Opinion

  • G.R. No. 131287 - PROSPERO BALGAMI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134039 - HEMINA M. ONGPAUCO, ET AL. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135253 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. MILWAUKEE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 135925 - BATELEC II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. v. ENERGY INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATION BUREAU, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 137707-11 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • People v. Sandiganbayan : 137707-11 : December 17, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • G.R. No. 137881 - ISAAC DELGADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137916 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138495 - ANTONIO BORBON, ET AL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138906 - MOISES BENTULAN, ET AL. v. AURELIA BENTULAN-MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140078 - ANGELINA ZABALA ALONTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 140518 - MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES' UNION v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 140576-99 - JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR. v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Ramiscal Jr v. Sandiganbayan : 140576-99 : December 13, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • G.R. No. 140959 - ANA RUBENITO, ET AL. v. LOLITA LAGATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142248 - REBECCA GUTIERREZ v. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144517 - ANTONIO S. QUINTANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147079 - A.F. SANCHEZ BROKERAGE INC. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148163 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. JUANITA B. YBA EZ

  • G.R. No. 148173 - SUPERCARS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE LATE FILEMON FLORES

  • G.R. No. 127882 - LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. VICTOR O. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • Central Bank Employees Assn v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas : 148208 :December 15, 2004 : J. Carpio : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • Central Bank Employees Assn v. BSP : 148208 : December 15, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 148786 - ROGER MANZANO v. LUZ DESPABILADERAS

  • G.R. No. 149117 - HEIRS OF CERILA GAMOS, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF JULIANO FRANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 151380-91 - ENGR. JOSE K. TUPAZ, ET AL. v. HON. SALVADOR Y. APURILLO, ET AL.

  • Tupaz v. Apurillo : 151380-91 : December 10, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

  • G.R. No. 152168 - HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BALITE v. RODRIGO N. LIM

  • G.R. No. 153911 - MELANIO MALLARI y LIBERATO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 148208 - CENTRAL BANK v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • Teves v. Teves : 154182 : December 17, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • G.R. No. 154182 - EDGAR Y. TEVES, ET AL. v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 154305 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 154668 - WILFRED A. NICOLAS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 155251 - ARNULFO EDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156160 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156168 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. JOSE T. CALDERON

  • G.R. No. 156842 - SOTERO A. PUNONGBAYAN v. DANILO G. PUNONGBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 157353 - FOOD TERMINAL, INC. v. HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156940 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN

  • G.R. NOS. 157419-20 - LIBRADO M. CABRERA, ET AL. v. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, ET AL.

  • Cabrera v. Marcelo : 157419-20 : December 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • G.R. No. 157494 - BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. THE HON. EMMA C. LABAYEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157581 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. AIRSPAN CORPORATION, LBC EXPRESS INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158806 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158526 - D.O. PLAZA MANAGEMENT CORP. v. CO-OWNERS HEIRS OF ANDRES ATEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159277 - PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION - QUEZON CITY v. HON. LITA S. TOLENTINO-GENILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159738 - UNION MOTOR CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160348 - WILLI HAHN ENTERPRISES v. LILIA R. MAGHUYOP

  • G.R. No. 159962 - MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, ET AL. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160730 - SISTER MA. ANGELINA M. FERNANDO, R.V.M. v. HON. CESAR D. SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161172 - NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES v. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 162126 - RCL FEEDERS PTE., LTD. v. HON. HERNANDO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162852 - PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 163720 - GENEVIEVE LIM v. FLORENCIO SABAN

  • A.C. No. 1536 - ROSENDO HOMERES v. QUIRINO ORIEL

  • A.C. No. 4552 - JOSE A. ROLDAN v. ATTY. NATALIO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4566 - UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ATTY. DANILO G. MACALINO

  • A.C. No. 6210 - FEDERICO N. RAMOS v. ATTY. PATRICIO A. NGASEO

  • A.C. No. 6289 - JULIAN MALONSO v. ATTY. PETE PRINCIPE

  • A.M. No. 02-5-107-MTCC - REQUEST OF PETER RISTIG FOR ASSISTANCE REGARDING DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 95227-R ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS HENRY UY" PENDING AT MTCC, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY

  • A.M. No. 04-7-373-RTC - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1404 - EXEC. JUDGE HENRY B. BASILLA v. JUDGE AMADO L. BECAMON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-04-1529 - PROS. EDILBERTO L. JAMORA v. JUDGE JOSE A. BERSALES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-04-1552 - DANTE M. QUINDOZA v. JUDGE EMMANUEL G. BANZON

  • A.M. No. P-00-1423 - FLORENTINA DEANG v. SHERIFFS ALLEN FRANCISCO S. SICAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1557 - CENON R. ALFONSO v. ARMANDO B. IGNACIO

  • A.M. No. P-04-1884 - QBE INSURANCE (PHILS.) INC. v. CRESENCIANO K. RABELLO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-04-1886 - JUANITO AGULAN, JR. v. TERESITA S. ESTEBAN

  • A.M. No. P-04-1887 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1645-P - BERNABE B. ALABASTRO v. SAMUEL D. MONCADA, SR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-04-1912 - EDGARDO D. PAMINTUAN v. CLERK OF COURT EDILAIDA D. ENTE-ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • A.M No. P-04-1925 - COURT PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT - SAN CARLOS CITY v. OSCAR LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. P-04-1928 - TEODORO M. GARCIA v. RUEL MAGCALAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864 - ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO v. JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1877 - LEONOR REYES-GARMSEN v. JUDGE SILVESTRE H. BELLO, JR.

  • Pangan v. Ganay : AM RTJ-04-1887 : December 9, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1889 - MA. CECILIA L. PESAYCO v. JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE

  •  





     
     

    Tupaz v. Apurillo : 151380-91 : December 10, 2004 : J. Quisumbing :
First Division : Decision

      Tupaz v. Apurillo : 151380-91 : December 10, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS


    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. NOS. 151380-91 : December 10, 2004]

    ENGR. JOSE K. TUPAZ, ENGR. RODOLFO A. CADAVIS, ENGR. ANDRES M. SEVILLA, JR., * ENGR. ARNULFO CAETE, MR. VICTOR A. ROMUALDEZ, and WILFREDO PAJARA, Petitioners, v. HON. SALVADOR Y. APURILLO, Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF [TACLOBAN CITY],** LEYTE, BRANCH 8, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    QUISUMBING, J.:

    In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order,1 petitioners seek to nullify the July 4, 2001 Order2 and the December 3, 2001 Resolution3 issued by public respondent Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 of Tacloban City.Petitioners also seek to enjoin Judge Apurillo from further proceeding with the trial of the consolidated criminal cases revived in the assailed Order of July 4, 2001.

    This case arose from reports of certain alleged anomalies committed in connection with a government infrastructure project at the Sta. Rita Resettlement Site in Western Samar.The National Bureau of Investigation, upon discovering the anomalies, filed several criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman in Visayas against the alleged perpetrators.Included as respondents in the complaints were herein petitioners Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete, all of whom were employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways, and petitioners Victor A. Romualdez and Wilfredo Pajara, the projects private contractors.

    After preliminary investigation, Graft Investigation Officer Avito P. Cahig found probable cause, and recommended the filing of criminal charges.His Resolution, dated May 17, 1994, was approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto on September 29, 1995.Consequently, Special Prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City the following criminal cases:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    1.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25 for Violation of Section 2 in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    2.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25-A for Violation of Section 2, in relation to Section 1 of PD 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    3.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25-B for Violation of Section 2, in relation to Section 1 of PD 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    4.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25-C for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    5.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25-D for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    6.Criminal Case No. 96-01-25-E for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Florentino Cruz;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    7.Criminal Case No. 96-01-26 for Violation of Section 2 in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Victor Romualdez;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    8.Criminal Case No. 96-01-26-A for Violation of Section 2 in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Victor A. Romualdez;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    9.Criminal Case No. 96-01-26-B for Violation of Section 2 in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Victor A. Romualdez;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    10.Criminal Case No. 96-01-26-C for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Victor A. Romualdez;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    11.Criminal Case No. 96-01-27 for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco V. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Wilfredo Pajara;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    12.Criminal Case No. 96-01-27-A for Violation of Section 2 in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1759 against Engr. Ricardo Tabungar, Engr. Francisco v. Odal, Engr. Damaso dela Cuadra, Engr. Jose K. Tupaz, Engr. Rodolfo A. Cadavis, Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, Jr., Engr. Arnulfo Caete and Wilfredo Pajara.4 cralawred

    The cases were consolidated and assigned to Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City.Owing to the retirement of the presiding judge of the branch, petitioners arraignment started only on February 17, 2000.5 cralawred

    Meanwhile, on August 9, 1999, this Court had ruled in Uy v. Sandiganbayan 6 that the Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.The Court stated that in criminal cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the authority to file Informations lies with the concerned Prosecutor, not with the Ombudsman.This decision became executory with the denial, on February 22, 2000, of the Ombudsmans Motion for Reconsideration.

    On the strength of this ruling, petitioners jointly sought to quash the twelve Informations.They cited that the court a quo lacked jurisdiction since the Special Prosecutors who filed the Informations had no authority to do so.7 cralawred

    Over the opposition of the prosecution,8 public respondent Judge Apurillo granted the motion in an Order dated January 23, 2001, thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, these cases are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Section 6 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    SO ORDERED.9 cralawred

    Nearly a month after the order attained finality, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information10 alleging that double jeopardy has not attached.This motion was opposed by petitioners who likewise moved to have the amended Informations expunged.11 cralawred

    Petitioners contended that since the Informations previously filed were void, amendment was improper.They argued that the prosecution should have instead conducted a new preliminary investigation.

    Later, in a Resolution12 promulgated on March 20, 2001, this Court, acting on a Motion for Clarification filed by the Ombudsman, set aside the August 9, 1999 Decision in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, as well as the February 22, 2000 Resolution denying reconsideration of the decision.This Court upheld the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, whether jurisdiction over those criminal cases lies with the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts.

    Armed with the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, the prosecution, on May 8, 2001, moved for reconsideration of the January 23, 2001 Order of dismissal of the trial court.The prosecution likewise prayed for a withdrawal of the amended informations it had filed.13 cralawred

    Despite opposition from the Petitioners,14 Judge Apurillo rendered on July 4, 2001, the questioned Order, which considered the criminal cases re-filed, to wit:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Motion to Admit Amended Information, the Motions to Withdraw Cash and Property Bonds, the Motion to Dismiss are hereby DENIED for having been overtaken by events and rendered moot and academic.The Notice of Death and Motion to Withdraw Property Bond filed for deceased-accused Damaso [de la] Cuadra are hereby GRANTED and said accused is hereby dropped from these cases.The Property Bond posted for his (Damaso dela Cuadra) provisional liberty is hereby cancelled and released and the prosecutions prayer that these cases be considered as re-filed, as far as the other accused are concerned, is hereby GRANTED.

    In the meantime, set these cases for hearing on July 12, 2001 at 2:00 P.M., as scheduled.15 (Emphasis supplied.)

    Later, in the assailed Resolution of December 3, 2001, Judge Apurillo also denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration; hence, the instant petition.

    Petitioners argue that respondent Judge Apurillo committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction

    I.

    ...WHEN HE RECONSIDERED AND REVERSED THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF JANUARY 23, 2001.

    II.

    ...WHEN HE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER A QUO THE RESOLUTION, DATED MARCH 2[0], 2001, OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GEORGE UY VERSUS SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL., G.R. NOS. 105965-70.

    III.

    ...WHEN HE CATEGORIZED THE ABSENCE OF A VALID AND LEGAL PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND INFORMATIONS FILED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AS MERELY PROCEDURAL, INSTEAD OF SUBSTANTIVE, INFIRMITIES.

    IV.

    ...WHEN HE REFUSED TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL HIATUS IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED, HEREIN PETITIONERS.16 cralawred

    Simply stated, for our resolution is the issue whether Judge Apurillo committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when he revived the subject criminal cases in the assailed Order dated July 4, 2001.

    It is a fact that on February 2, 2001, the prosecution received a copy of the January 23, 2001 Order dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 96-01-25, 96-01-25-A, 96-01-25-B, 96-01-25-C, 96-01-25-D, 96-01-25-E, 96-01-26, 96-01-26-A, 96-01-26-B, 96-01-26-C, 96-01-27, and 96-01-27-A.The prosecution did not seek reconsideration of the Order nor did it file an appeal.Hence, the Order attained finality on February 17, 2001.

    After the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal,17 an order becomes executory, and it goes beyond the jurisdiction of the court that rendered it to further amend or revoke.18 The subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration cannot disturb the finality of a judgment, nor restore jurisdiction that had already been lost.19 A final and executory judgment or order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification sought is to correct an erroneous conclusion by the court that rendered it.20 cralawred

    It may well be true that the order of dismissal was erroneous or was issued with grave abuse of discretion.Nevertheless, the order of dismissal having attained finality must be given effect.21 The doctrine of finality of judgment, which is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, dictates that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final and executory at some definite date set by law.22 cralawred

    With the finality of the order of dismissal, the subject criminal cases were removed from the docket of the trial court.The Regional Trial Court no longer had jurisdiction to consider as re-filed the criminal cases and then proceed with the trial thereof.When the dismissal order attained finality, for the failure of the prosecution to seek reconsideration or to appeal the order, the jurisdiction that the trial court had over the cases was finally discharged and terminated.23 Thus, at that time, there was grave abuse of discretion when Judge Apurillo reversed the final and executory order of dismissal notwithstanding the March 20, 2001 Resolution of this Court in Uy v. Sandiganbayan.

    Under the circumstances, the remedy available to the prosecution, if it really wanted to pursue the criminal charges, is to file Informations anew.Mere revival of the dismissed cases by motion or otherwise is not procedurally feasible, considering that the dismissal, although without prejudice, had already attained finality.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.For having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, the Order, dated July 4, 2001, which revived Criminal Cases Nos. 96-01-25, 96-01-25-A, 96-01-25-B, 96-01-25-C, 96-01-25-D, 96-01-25-E, 96-01-26, 96-01-26-A, 96-01-26-B, 96-01-26-C, 96-01-27, and 96-01-27-A, as well as the Resolution, dated December 3, 2001, that denied reconsideration of the said Order, are SET ASIDE.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    * Also Engr. Andres M. Sevilla, in some parts of the Records.

    ** Solely referred to as Leyte in some parts of the Records.

    1 Rollo , pp. 3-36.

    2 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-27 to 27-A), pp. 430-431.

    3 Id. at 483-487.

    4 Rollo, pp. 8-10, 200-204.

    5 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25), p. 361; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25-B), p. 7; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25-C), p. 7; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25-D), p. 8; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25-E), p. 8; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26), p. 52; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26-A), p. 7; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26-B), p. 9; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26-C), p. 8; Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-27 to 27-A), p. 290.

    6 G.R. NOS. 105965-70, 9 August 1999, 312 SCRA 77.

    7 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-25), pp. 386-390.

    8 Id. at 391-392.

    9 Id. at 402.

    10 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26), pp. 72-73.

    11 Id. at 62-63.

    12 Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOS. 105965-70, 20 March 2001, 354 SCRA 651.

    13 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-26), pp. 78-80.

    14 Id. at 81-83.

    15 Records (Crim. Case No. 96-01-27 to 27-A), p. 431.

    16 Rollo, pp. 13-14.

    17 SEC. 6.When appeal to be taken.An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.(Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.)

    18 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95533, 20 November 2000, 345 SCRA 63, 69; Borillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55691, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 130, 140; Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74697, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 304, 307-308; Olympia International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-43236, 20 December 1989, 180 SCRA 353, 362; Heirs of Patriaca v. Court of Appeals, No. L-59701, 31 August 1983, 124 SCRA 410, 412-413; Turqueza v. Hernando, No. L-51626, 30 April 1980, 97 SCRA 483, 488.

    19 Pfleider v. Victoriano, No. L-49809, 30 June 1980, 98 SCRA 491, 497.

    20 Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra,note 18.

    21 See Turqueza v. Hernando, supra,note 18 at 490.

    23 Olympia International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 361-362.

    Tupaz v. Apurillo : 151380-91 : December 10, 2004 : J. Quisumbing :
First Division : Decision


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED