Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49770:gr-148072-2007&catid=1494&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:51:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 148072 - Francisco Magestrado v. People of the Philippines et al.
FRANCISCO MAGESTRADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ELENA M. LIBROJO Respondents.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the (1) Resolution1 dated 5 March 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293 entitled, "Francisco Magestrado v. Hon. Estrella T. Estrada, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 83 of Quezon City, People of the Philippines and Elena M. Librojo," which dismissed petitioner Francisco Magestrado's Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy; and (2) Resolution2 dated 3 May 2001 of the same Court denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint3 for perjury against petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which was docketed as I.S. No. 98-3900.
The case was raffled to the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 43, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Francisco Magestrado."
On 30 June 1999, petitioner filed a motion5 for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question. Petitioner alleged that Civil Case No. Q-98-34349, a case for recovery of a sum of money pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84, and Civil Case No. Q-98 - 34308, a case for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title and Damages, pending before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77, must be resolved first before Criminal Case No. 90721 may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action.
Acting on the "Motion for Suspension of Proceedings" filed by the [herein petitioner Magestrado], thru counsel, and the "Comment and Opposition thereto, the Court after an evaluation of the same, finds the aforesaid motion without merit, hence, is hereby DENIED, it appearing that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Hence, the trial of this case shall proceed as previously scheduled on July 19 and August 2, 1993 at 8:30 in the morning.
On 17 August 1999, a motion7 for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but was denied by the MeTC in an Order8 dated 19 October 1999.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari9 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with a prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 83, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-39358, on the ground that MeTC Judge Billy J. Apalit committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721.
Again, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration11 but this was denied by RTC - Branch 83 in an Order12 dated 21 December 2000.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari13 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63293. Petitioner alleged that RTC Judge Estrella T. Estrada committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358, and in effect sustaining the denial by MeTC-Branch 43 of petitioner's motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721, as well as his subsequent motion for reconsideration thereof.
Section 10. Time for filing memoranda on special cases. In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall file in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record x x x.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration16 in a Resolution17 dated 3 May 2001.
1. Whether or not the Orders of Judge Estrella T. Estrada dated March 14, 2000 denying petitioner's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and her subsequent Order dated December 21, 2000, denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed can only be reviewed by the Court of Appeals thru appeal under Section 10, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether or not Judge Estrella T. Estrada of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Quezon City, had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of her jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari and petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration on the ground of a prejudicial question pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the prevailing jurisprudence.
After consideration of the procedural and substantive issues raised by petitioner, we find the instant petition to be without merit.
The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Private respondent and public respondent People of the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy.
We agree with respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court (and not under Rule 44, Section 10, invoked by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 5 March 2001).
The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC-Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 but also because RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au contraire, an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the latter.18 RTC-Branch 83's Order dated 14 March 2001 dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 finally disposes of the said case and RTC-Branch 83 can do nothing more with the case.
Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to petitioners. Here, appeal was available. It was adequate to deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial court might have committed. But petitioners instead filed a special civil action for certiorari .
Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and hence a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari . The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.
On 21 December 2000, petitioner received a copy of the Order of the RTC-Branch 83 denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358; hence, he had until 18 January 2001 within which to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner on 19 February 2001 with the Court of Appeals cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. As petitioner failed to file a timely appeal, RTC-Branch 83's dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari had long become final and executory.
For this procedural lapse, the Court of Appeals correctly denied outright the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner before it.
For clarity, we shall first discuss the allegations of petitioner in his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 (for cancellation of mortgage) and that of private respondent in her complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 (for collection of a sum of money).
B. That after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in [private respondent's] favor as against [petitioner], ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P758,134.42 plus interest thereon at 5% per month from September 1997 up to the date of actual payment; actual damages in the sums of P70,000.00 each under paragraphs 11 and 12 of the complaint; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; twenty (20%) of the principal claim as attorney's fees plus P2,500.00 per appearance honorarium; and P60,000.00 as litigation expense before this Honorable Court.
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the civil cases are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution of the issues in the civil cases would also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 pending before RTC-Branch 77, and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349, pending before RTC-Branch 84, are principally for the determination of whether a loan was obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether petitioner executed a real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT No. N-173163. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 90721 before MeTC-Branch 43, involves the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in executing an affidavit of loss to support his request for issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163.
It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently of each other. Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases, it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perjury. The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT No. N-173163.
MeTC-Branch 43, therefore, did not err in ruling that the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 for cancellation of mortgage before the RTC-Branch 77; and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 for collection of a sum of money before RTC-Branch 84, do not pose a prejudicial question in the determination of whether petitioner is guilty of perjury in Criminal Case No. 90721. RTC-Branch 83, likewise, did not err in ruling that MeTC-Branch 43 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Resolutions dated 5 March 2001 and 3 May 2001of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293 are hereby AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, is hereby directed to proceed with the hearing and trial on the merits of Criminal Case No. 90721, and to expedite proceedings therein, without prejudice to the right of the accused to due process. Costs against petitioner.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Elvi John S. Asuncion concurring; rollo, pp. 27-29.
3 The date of filing of the criminal complaint does not appear from the Records.
4 CA rollo, p. 21.
6 Penned by Judge Billy M. Apalit. Id. at 66.
10 Penned by Judge Estrella T. Estrada. Id. at 18.
18 Diesel Construction Company, Inc. v. Jollibee Corp., 380 Phil 813, 824 (2000).
19 De la Paz v. Panis, 315 Phil. 238, 248 (1995).
20 Felizardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112050, 15 June 1994, 233 SCRA 220, 223-224.
21 David v. Cordova, G.R. No. 152992, 28 July 2005, 464 SCRA 385, 395.
22 Delgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137881, 21 December 2004, 447 SCRA 402, 413.
23 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 785 (2003).
24 Bell Carpets Int l Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75315, 7 May 1990, 185 SCRA 35, 41.
25 G.R. NOS. 102193-97, 10 May 1994, 232 SCRA 291, 298.
26 This case was subsequently dismissed on 15 August 2000 on ground of litis pendentia (pendency of Civil Case No. 34308). The motion for reconsideration was denied on 27 December 2000. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
27 Te v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126746, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 327, 335.
28 Donato v. Luna, G.R. No. L-53642, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 441, 445; Quiambao v. Osorio, G.R. No. L-48157, 16 March 1988, 158 SCRA 674, 677-678; Ras v. Rasul, G.R. NOS. L-50441-42, 18 September 1980, 100 SCRA 125, 127.
29 Prado v. People, 218 Phil 573, 577 (1984).
30 Sabandal v. Tongco, 419 Phil. 13, 18 (2001).
31 Rojas v. People, 156 Phil. 224, 229 (1974).
32 Quiambao v. Osorio, supra note 28 at 679.
33 Security Bank Corporation v. Victorio, G.R. No. 156994, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 609, 628.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.