June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 170046 (People of the Philippines v. Maximo A. Borje, Jr., et al). - For resolution is respondents-movants Romeo C. Fullido and Nonnette H. Fullido's Extremely Urgent Manifestation and Omnibus Motion for Clarification and/or Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order.
In an Information dated March 1, 2004, herein respondents-movants, together with twenty-eight (28) other persons, some of whom were officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the others were private persons who supposedly connived with them, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of plunder as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080 (RA 7080), as amended. Respondents were charged in connection with their alleged conspiracy in committing acts of misappropriation, conversion, misuse, diversion and/or malversation of public funds by falsifying public, official and/or commercial documents to make it appear that emergency repairs were done on various vehicles of the DPWH and that spare parts were purchased for the purpose of such repairs when, in fact, these alleged repairs and purchases were all fictitious.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 27969.
Subsequently, respondents-movants and the other co-accused filed separate Motions for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
Thereafter, a Hold Depature Order (HDO) was issued by the Sandiganbayan barring the accused in the said case, including herein respondents-movants, from traveling outside the Philippines.
On January 20, 2005, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, for lack of probable cause for the crime of plunder, the Court is constrained to dismiss, as it does hereby DISMISS, the above-entitled case, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges against the accused.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is directed to conduct a reinvestigation in the case of accused Castillo, Romeo and Nonnette Fullido, and De la Rosa, and to render its report to this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of this resolution.
SO ORDERED.[1]
The prosecution filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on October 12, 2005.
The prosecution then filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court assailing the above Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
Pending resolution of the instant petition, respondents-movants filed the instant Manifestation and Motion praying that this Court issue an order clarifying that the HDO issued in Criminal Case No. 27969 is lifted and set aside; in the alternative, an order be issued allowing herein respondents-movants to travel to Singapore from December 27, 2011 to December 29, 2011.
In its Comment, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) opined that the subject HDO is impliedly lifted on the ground that Criminal Case No. 27969 was already dismissed by the Sandiganbayan for lack of probable cause. The OSP also informed this Court that respondents-movants were, in fact, able to travel to Singapore during the requested dates on the strength of two separate Resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan which were both dated December 9, 2011.[2] Copies of the said Resolutions, which were attached to the Comment of the OSP, show that respondents-movants were impleaded as accused in two criminal cases pending with the Sandiganbayan and that they both filed with the said Court an Urgent Motion with Leave to Travel Abroad.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds the Motion to lift the subject HDO meritorious.
A hold departure order is but an exercise of a court's inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused.[3] It is a provisional and ancillary order. As such, its existence and effectivity is dependent upon the result of the main action.
Apropos to this are rulings of this Court involving the dissolution of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, which are provisional orders, wherein it was held that the dismissal of the complaint on the merits automatically dissolves the injunction issued therein even if the decision or order of dismissal is on appeal.[4]
This Court has held, thus:
The writ [of preliminary injunction] is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
x x x x
The present case having been heard and found dismissible as it was in fact dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal therefrom notwithstanding.
x x x x
x x x a dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits, the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence, the general rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.[5]
The Court finds the principle enunciated above applicable in the instant case.
Thus, in view of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 27969, wherein the said HDO was issued, as well as in the absence of a hold departure order issued by this Court in the instant petition, the subject HDO is considered lifted.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Hold Departure Order issued by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27969 is deemed LIFTED, without prejudice to any other Hold Departure Orders issued by any Court in any case involving herein respondents-movants. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., designated Acting Members in lieu of Mendoza and Velasco, Jr., JJ., respectively, per Special Order Nos. 1229 and 1241, dated June 6, 2012 and June 14, 2012, respectively.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 75-76.[2] See Rollo, pp. 1463-1466.
[3] Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633, 649.
[4] CGP Transport and Services Corporation v. PCI Leasing and Finance, Incorporated, G.R. No. 164547, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 314, 320.
[5] Spouses Daisy and Socrates M. Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank and the Register of Deeds of Para�aque City, G.R. No. 193415, April 18, 2012, citing Buyco v. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 699.