ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145942,February 5, 2001]

MBTC vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

G.R. No. 145942(Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Department of Justice and Manuel S. Chupungco.)

In 1994, petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company filed a complaint against respondent Manuel Chupungco for estafa. After the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, but, on motion of petitioner bank, the investigating prosecutor reconsidered and recommended the filing of the case against respondent Chupungco. Private respondent appealed to the Secretary of Justice who set aside the resolution of the prosecutor and directed him to withdraw the information against Chupungco from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig City, where the case was filed. Petitioner bank then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to set aside the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. In the meantime, pursuant to the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the prosecution moved for the withdrawal of the information against respondent Chupungco, but, in an order dated August 13, 1998, the trial court denied the motion and scheduled the arraignment of Chupungco. On October 20, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the bank's petition on the ground that it was filed without petitioner having first sought a reconsideration of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of this ruling. During the pendency of its motion, Branch 168, to which the case had been re-raffled, ordered the records of the criminal case to be temporarily archived. On October 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed this action to set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the certiorari proceedings filed by it. Petitioner contends that in accordance with the ruling in Tan v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 568 (1997), there was no need for it to file a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice before it could file a petition for certiorari. Hence, it was error for the appeals court to dismiss the bank's petition on the ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner's contention is untenable. The rule requiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a requisite for the filing of a petition for certiorari is designed to give an opportunity to the lower court or agency concerned to correct its errors or ruling (Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, 241 SCRA 681 (1995)). In this case, the order which petitioner asked the Court of Appeals to set aside relates to the review by the Secretary of Justice of the finding of probable cause in a complaint for estafa. Considering that this involves the determination of questions of fact and law, it was necessary that the Secretary of Justice be given an opportunity to pass upon the question raised before a petition for certiorari was resorted to. Indeed, the filing of such motion is enjoined under Department of Justice Order No.223, �10, dated June 30, 1993.

Petitioner's invocation of Tan v. Court of Appeals is unavailing because not only was the question involved therein one of law (validity of the motion for new trial filed by defendant), there was also an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question to prevent possible failure of justice as the lower court had ordered execution. In this case, aside from the fact that questions of facts are involved, there was no urgency for petitioner to immediately seek issuance of the writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals considering that at the time it filed the petition on September 2, 1997, the prosecution had not yet sought the withdrawal of the information from the trial court. Indeed, it was only on August 13, 1998 that the trial court issued its order denying the withdrawal of the information.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE