ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 137010. December 8, 2003]

ARK TRAVEL vs. ABROGAR

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2003.

G.R. No. 137010 (Ark Travel Express, Inc., petitioner, vs. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 150, Hon. Zeus Abrogar, Violeta Baguio and Leorelei Ira, respondents.)

Submitted for our resolution is a Motion for Judicial Determination as to Lack or Inexistence of Probable Cause filed by private respondents.

Per our Decision, * promulgated on August 29, 2003, we took cognizance of herein petition for certiorari in the interest of speedy justice and resolved the issue on the existence of probable cause for this matter has been pending since 1998, in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Orders dated October 2, 1998 and November 23, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE insofar only as said court, acting as an appellate court, considered Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 as withdrawn.

The Orders dated June 10, 1998 and July 21, 1998 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati (Branch 67) in Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 are likewise NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In lieu thereof, the said Metropolitan Trial Court is directed to SUSPEND the criminal proceedings until after the final decision in Civil Case No. 95-1542 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 137).

Relying on the pleadings and memoranda of the parties that Civil Case No. 95-1542, where the private respondents gave their testimonies, subject of the criminal cases charging them with the crime of False Testimony in a Civil Case, still pends, we ordered the suspension of the criminal cases until a final decision shall have been rendered in said civil case.

Private respondents now come to the Court with the information that there is a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 95-1542 and implore us to proceed with the determination of the lack or inexistence of probable cause. Private respondents attached photocopies of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 137) and that of the Court of Appeals together with this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 147051, entitled, "Ark Travel Express, Inc. vs. New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc." and the Entry of Judgment.

We deny the motion.

It is very ironic that we resolved the issue on probable cause, in the interest of speedy justice and yet the parties abused the process by withholding pertinent informations for the just disposition of the petition for certiorari.

A perusal of the Regional Trial Court's decision in favor of petitioner in Civil Case No. 95-1542 shows that it was rendered on December 16, 1996; the Court of Appeal's decision modifying the judgment of the trial court was promulgated on November 16, 2000; our Resolution dismissing the petition for review is dated December 12, 2001 and the Entry of Judgment has been recorded on July 18, 2002.

It appears that in all the time herein petition for certiorari was pending in this Court, there was already a disposition made in Civil Case No. 95-1542. At the time petition for certiorari was filed on January 25, 1999, the Regional Trial Court had already rendered a decision way back 1996. When we gave due course to this petition and required the parties to file their respective Memoranda on July 3, 2002, the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision and this Court had rendered its Resolution dismissing the petition for review on certiorari. And yet not one of the parties, most especially the private respondents, informed us of the status of Civil Case No. 95-1542.

Under the above circumstances, the case should now be remanded to the MTC for the initial evaluation of the existence of probable cause in the criminal cases pending before it.

Finally, we cannot countenance this showing of indifference displayed by the parties which in a way affected the disposition of this case not to mention the corresponding wasted time and effort of the Court. To give due course to the motion would give premium to such contumacious omission.

WHEREFORE, the Motion is DENIED. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati (Branch 67) is DIRECTED to proceed with Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 and to evaluate the lack or existence of probable cause in said cases.

Petitioner and private respondents as well as their respective counsels of record are given ten (10) days from notice within which to show cause why they should not be declared in contempt of court for unduly withholding from this Court pertinent informations in the determination of the issues in the present petition.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

* Through the Second Division, composed of Associate Justices Josue N. Bellosillo ( now retired), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. and Dante O. Tinga.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com