ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140863. June 7, 2000]

SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al. vs. MA. FE BARREIRO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 140863 (Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. & People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Fe Barreiro.)

This refers to the motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. from this Court's Resolution dated March 22, 2000 which dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus upon Manifestation and Motion of the Office of the Solicitor General stating that the latter was not consulted nor did it authorize petitioner Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. to file the petition.

The main petition stems form an Information for Estafa filed with the Regional Trial Court of Para�aque, Branch 257 against respondent Ma. Fe Barreiro based on a resolution of the City Prosecutor of Para�aque City finding probable cause. The Information for Estafa was filed on May 28, 1999 and private respondent Barreiro appeared on June 2, 1999 before the trial court and posted a cash bond in the amount of P40,000.00. In the Order of June 3, 1999, the trial court set the arraignment on August 5, 1999. However, on June 23, 1999, private respondent Barreiro appealed to the Secretary of Justice for a review of the resolution of the City Prosecutor of Para�aque City finding probable cause. As a consequence, the trial court reset the arraignment of private respondent on September 2, 1999. On said date, the trial court again postponed the arraignment. Petitioner assails the Order of November 15, 1999 which deferred the arraignment "until such time that the appeal with the said office is resolved", as well as the Order of November 22, 1999 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration, for having been allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

In the instant motion for reconsideration, petitioner Solar Team contends that the rule that when criminal actions are brought to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General must represent the People of the Philippines is not absolute. It is petitioner's submission that the instant case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and petitioner, as the offended party in the criminal case, has sufficient interest and personality as a "person aggrieved" to file the petition.

Without delving into the merits of the petition, we find petitioner's motion to be well-taken.

As a rule, the office of the Solicitor General shall represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings1 Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, The Administrative Code of 1987. and we have ruled in a number of cases2 People vs. Mendoza, 231 SCRA 264; People vs. Nano, 205 SCRA 155; People vs. Eduarte, 182 SCRA 750; People vs. Calo, 186 SCRA 620. that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines when such actions are brought before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.

While it is true that the instant case originated from a criminal case for Estafa filed below, a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 may be filed by the private offended party or complainant as a "person aggrieved" by the court's action.3 Section 1, Rule 65 (Certiorari) provides: "When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgments be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require."

Section 3, Rule 65 (Mandamus) provides: "When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, ad to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondents." In a number of cases4 Paredes vs. Gopengco, 29 SCRA 688; People vs. Calo, Jr., 186 SCRA 620. of this Court ruled that the offended parties in criminal cases, like the herein petitioner, have "sufficient interest and personality" as "person(s) aggrieved" to file the special civil action of certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65 in line with the underlying spirit of the liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote their object. As explained in People vs. Santiago5 174 SCRA 143.:

It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's roe is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said complainant." (underscoring supplied).

As stated, complainant should be prosecuted in the name of the complainant, and not in the name of the People of the Philippines. In this case the petition was erroneously brought in the name of both the complainant and the People of the Philippines. The error should not serve as a ground for dismissal of the petition. Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3,6 Section 11, Rule 3 provides: "Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. - Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of ant party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. the Court may order as it hereby orders the dropping of the People of the Philippines as party-petitioner.7 See, Paredes vs. Gopengco, supra.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The petition is REINSTATED and the People of the Philippines is DROPPED as party-petitioner in the instant case.

SO ORDERED. (Vitug, J., is on official leave)

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE