Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82101:g-r-no-183014,-august-07,-2013-the-law-firm-of-chavez-miranda-and-aseoche,-represented-by-its-founding-partner,-francisco-i-chavez,-petitioner,-v-atty-josejina-c-fria,-respondent&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:35:52+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 183014, August 07, 2013 - THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA, Respondent.
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA, Respondent.
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (RTC), through a petition for review on certiorari,1 raising a pure question of law. In particular, petitioner The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm) assails the Resolution2 dated January 8, 2008 and Order3 dated May 16, 2008 of the RTC in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096, upholding the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause.
That on or about the 2nd day of February, 2006, or on dates subsequent thereto, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer she being the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court Branch 203, Muntinlupa City, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously refused openly, without any legal justification to obey the order of the said court which is of superior authority, for the issuance of a writ of execution which is her ministerial duty to do so in Civil Case No. 03-110 entitled Charles Bernard Reyes, doing business under the name and style CBH Reyes Architects vs. Spouses Cesar and Mely Esquig and Rosemarie Papas, which has become final and executory since February 2, 2006, despite requests therefor, if only to execute/enforce said decision dated July 29, 2005 rendered within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all the legal formalities, to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff thereof.
In its Complaint-Affidavit10 dated February 12, 2006, The Law Firm alleged that as early as April 4, 2006, it had been following up on the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the July 29, 2005 judgment. However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her ministerial duty of issuing said writ.
On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a Memorandum14 recommending, inter alia, that Atty. Fria be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. The corresponding Information was thereafter filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80 (MTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 46400.
On September 4, 2006, Atty. Fria filed a Motion for Determination of Probable Cause15 (motion) which The Law Firm opposed16 on the ground that the Rules on Criminal Procedure do not empower trial courts to review the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and that such rules only give the trial court judge the duty to determine whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
Pending resolution of her motion, Atty. Fria filed a Manifestation with Motion17 dated November 17, 2006, stating that the Court had rendered a Decision in the case of Reyes v. Balde II (Reyes)18 – an offshoot of Civil Case No. 03-110 – wherein it was held that Branch 203 had no jurisdiction over the foregoing civil case.19 In response, The Law Firm filed its Comment/Opposition,20 contending that Atty. Fria already committed the crime of Open Disobedience 119 days before the Reyes ruling was rendered and hence, she remains criminally liable for the afore-stated charge.
Aggrieved, The Law Firm filed a Motion for Reconsideration29 which was equally denied by the RTC in an Order30 dated May 16, 2008. Hence, the instant petition.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the RTC erred in sustaining the MTC’s dismissal of the case for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria, i.e., Criminal Case No. 46400, for lack of probable cause.
While a judge’s determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause x x x.
In this regard, so as not to transgress the public prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that the judge’s dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to order the presentation of additional evidence.
Applying these principles to the case at bar would lead to the conclusion that the MTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. The dismissal ought to be sustained since the records clearly disclose the unmistakable absence of the integral elements of the crime of Open Disobedience. While the first element, i.e., that the offender is a judicial or executive officer, concurs in view of Atty. Fria’s position as Branch Clerk of Court, the second and third elements of the crime evidently remain wanting.
Hence, since it is explicitly required that the subject issuance be made within the scope of a superior authority’s jurisdiction, it cannot therefore be doubted that the second element of the crime of Open Disobedience does not exist. Lest it be misunderstood, a court – or any of its officers for that matter – which has no jurisdiction over a particular case has no authority to act at all therein. In this light, it cannot be argued that Atty. Fria had already committed the crime based on the premise that the Court’s pronouncement as to Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction came only after the fact. Verily, Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction was not merely a product of the Court’s pronouncement in Reyes. The said fact is traced to the very inception of the proceedings and as such, cannot be accorded temporal legal existence in order to indict Atty. Fria for the crime she stands to be prosecuted.
In fine, based on the above-stated reasons, the Court holds that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the MTC as correctly found by the RTC. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”35 Consequently, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause is hereby sustained.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated January 8, 2008 and Order dated May 16, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096 are hereby AFFIRMED.
2 Id. at 9-10. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva.
ART. 231. Open Disobedience. – Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision, or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
14 Id. at 237-242. Issued by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Leopoldo B. Macinas and approved by City Prosecutor Edward M. Togonon.
16 Id. at 264-281. See Opposition dated October 10, 2006.
18 G.R. No. 168384, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 186.
20Rollo, pp. 287-294. Filed on December 21, 2006.
21 Id. at 296-304. Penned by Presiding Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos.
25 Id. at 295 and 330.
28 Id. at 10. Dated January 30, 2008.
31 G.R. Nos. 178947 and 179079, June 26, 2013.
33 Supra note 18, at 197.
35Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341, 348.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
In fine

ART. 231
 v.