Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 203370, April 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 215106 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.:

Before this Court are two (2) consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.¹ The first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 203370, filed by petitioners Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (Malayan Insurance) and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners) assails the Decision² dated February 24, 2012 and the Resolution³ dated September 5, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467, which denied their appeal from the Order⁴ dated February 20, 2007 and the Resolution⁵ dated September 3, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Makati-RTC), Branch 137 (Makati-RTC, Br. 137) in Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground that the same was not authorized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). On the other hand, the second petition, docketed as G.R. No. 215106, filed by petitioner Malayan Insurance assails the Decision⁶ dated March 31, 2014 and the Resolution⁷ dated October 17, 2014 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32148, which denied its appeal from the Orders⁸ dated December 28, 2007 and August 29, 2008 of the Makati-RTC, Branch 62 (Makati-RTC, Br. 62) in Criminal Case No. 06-884 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The Facts

On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez (Gimenez), President of the Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency - the advertising arm of the Yuchengco Group of Companies (Yuchengco Group), to which Malayan Insurance is a corporate member - filed a Complaint-Affidavit⁹ for thirteen (13) counts of Libel, defined and penalized under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), before the City Prosecutor of Makati City, docketed as I.S. No. 05-1-11895, against herein respondents Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Relova Santos, John Joseph Gutierrez, Jocelyn Upano, Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja, Wonina M. Bonifacio, Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste, Victoria Gomez Jacinto, Juvencio Pereche, Jr., Ricardo Lorayes, Peter C. Suchianco, and Trennie Monsod (respondents) for purportedly posting defamatory articles/statements on the website www.pepcoalition.com that besmirched the reputation of the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group, including herein petitioners.¹⁰

Upon the prosecutor's finding of probable cause,¹¹ thirteen (13) Informations were filed before the Makati-RTC. Among those filed were Criminal Case Nos. 06-877¹² and 06-882¹³ (raffled to Makati-RTC, Br. 137) and Criminal Case No. 06-884¹⁴ (raffled to Makati-RTC, Br. 62), from which arose the present petitions.

In Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882, respondents filed a Motion to Quash¹⁵ dated June 7, 2006, asserting, among others, lack of jurisdiction, since the residences of petitioners were not alleged in the Informations. Besides, even if so stated, the residence or principal office address of petitioners was admittedly at Quintin Paredes Street, Binondo, Manila, and not in Makati City. Hence, the venue was mislaid, and the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 did not have jurisdiction over the said cases.¹⁶

In an Order¹⁷ dated February 20, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 granted the said motion and dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.¹⁸ It found that the Informations filed in these cases failed to state that any one of the offended parties resides in Makati City, or that the subject articles were printed or first published in Makati City.¹⁹ Hence, the failure to state the aforementioned details was a fatal defect which negated its jurisdiction over the criminal cases.²⁰ Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,²¹ which was, however, denied in a Resolution²² dated September 3, 2007. Hence, petitioners filed an appeal²³ before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 31467.

Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 06-884, respondents filed a Motion to Quash²⁴ dated June 5, 2006, based on the following grounds: (a) that the Information failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati-RTC; (b) that the acts complained of in the Information are not punishable by law; and (c) that the Information is fatally defective for failing to designate the offense charged and to allege the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense of Libel.²⁵cralawred

In an Order²⁶ dated December 28, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br, 62 dismissed Criminal Case No. 06-884 for lack of probable cause. Among others, it ruled that the element of malice was lacking since respondents did not appear to have been motivated by personal ill will to speak or spite Malayan Insurance.²⁷ The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration,²⁸ which was,, however, denied in an Order²⁹ dated August 29, 2008. Thus, Malayan Insurance filed an appeaL³⁰ before the CA. docketed as CA-GR. CR. No. 32148.

The Proceedings Before the CA

In CA-GR. CR No. 31467, the CA noted that while petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, the Appellants' Brief was filed only by the private prosecutor, and not by the OSG as required by law.³¹ It likewise observed from the records that the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion³² dated September 16, 2008 asking that "it be excused from filing any documents or pleadings relative to the aforementioned case[,] considering that it had not received any endorsement coming from the Department of Justice to appeal the same."³³ Moreover, the CA held that "the Chief City Prosecutor-of Makati City was required to comment, and he categorically stated in his Explanation and Compliance that he did not authorize the filing, nor conform to the filing of an appeal from the quashal of the two (2) Informations in [Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882]."³⁴

Thus, in the assailed Decision³⁵ dated February 24, 2012, the CA denied the appeal outright on the ground that the same was not filed by the authorized official, i.e., the OSG. It remarked that although the private prosecutor may, at certain times, be permitted to participate in criminal proceedings on appeal in the CA, his participation is always subject to prior approval of the OSG; and the former cannot be permitted to adopt a position that is not consistent with that of the OSG.³⁶ Petitioners' motion for reconsideration³⁷ was denied in the assailed Resolution³⁸ dated September 5, 2012, prompting them to file the petition in G.R. No. 203370.

The same was reached when the CA, in the assailed Decision³⁹ dated March 31, 2014 in CA-GR. CR. No. 32148, denied Malayan Insurance's appeal, but this time, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The ruling was premised on its finding that the case of Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149 (Bonifacio),⁴⁰ which involved one of the thirteen (13) Libel cases, particularly Criminal Case No. 06-876, participated in by the same parties albeit concerning a different defamatory article, is already controlling.⁴¹ Hence, since this Court directed the quashal of Information in Criminal Case No. 06-876 and dismissed the same, the CA did not delve on the propriety of the Makati-RTC, Br. 62's finding of probable cause, and instead, adopted, the same course of action in Bonifacio. In its view, all other issues are rendered moot and academic in light of this Court's declaration that the Makati-RTC is without jurisdiction to try and hear cases for Libel filed by Malayan Insurance against respondents. ⁴² Malayan Insurance's motion for reconsideration⁴³ was denied in the assailed Resolution⁴⁴ dated October 17, 2014, prompting it to file the petition in G.R. No. 215106.

The Issues Before the Court

In G.R. No. 203370, petitioners contend that the CA erred in denying the appeal in CA-GR. CR No. 31467 due to lack of the OSG's authorization. While in G.R. No. 215106, Malayan Insurance argued that the CA likewise erred in denying its appeal, in CA-GR. CR. No. 32148, but this time, on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court's Ruling

I. Resolution of G.R. No. 203370

The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG⁴⁵ which is "the law office of the Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the People [of the Philippines] before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require."⁴⁶ Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code⁴⁷ provides that:

Section 35. Powers and Functions.

Back to Home | Back to Main