Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45885:150793&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:20:17+00:00

Document:
FRANCIS CHUA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA C. HAO, Respondents.
Petitioner assails the Decision,1 dated June 14, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57070, affirming the Order, dated October 5, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19. The RTC reversed the Order, dated April 26, 1999, of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 22. Also challenged by herein petitioner is the CA Resolution,2 dated November 20, 2001, denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
That on or about May 13, 1994, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of falsification upon a public document, to wit: the said accused prepared, certified, and falsified the Minutes of the Annual Stockholders meeting of the Board of Directors of the Siena Realty Corporation, duly notarized before a Notary Public, Atty. Juanito G. Garcia and entered in his Notarial Registry as Doc No. 109, Page 22, Book No. IV and Series of 1994, and therefore, a public document, by making or causing it to appear in said Minutes of the Annual Stockholders Meeting that one LYDIA HAO CHUA was present and has participated in said proceedings, when in truth and in fact, as the said accused fully well knew that said Lydia C. Hao was never present during the Annual Stockholders Meeting held on April 30, 1994 and neither has participated in the proceedings thereof to the prejudice of public interest and in violation of public faith and destruction of truth as therein proclaimed.
Thereafter, the City Prosecutor filed the Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 2857216 for falsification of public document, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 22, against Francis Chua but dismissed the accusation against Elsa Chua.
Herein petitioner, Francis Chua, was arraigned and trial ensued thereafter.
During the trial in the MeTC, private prosecutors Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho and Atty. Ariel Bruno Rivera appeared as private prosecutors and presented Hao as their first witness.
After Hao's testimony, Chua moved to exclude complainant's counsels as private prosecutors in the case on the ground that Hao failed to allege and prove any civil liability in the case.
In an Order, dated April 26, 1999, the MeTC granted Chua's motion and ordered the complainant's counsels to be excluded from actively prosecuting Criminal Case No. 285721. Hao moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Hence, Hao filed a petition for certiorari docketed as SCA No. 99-94846,7 entitled Lydia C. Hao, in her own behalf and for the benefit of Siena Realty Corporation v. Francis Chua, and the Honorable Hipolito dela Vega, Presiding Judge, Branch 22, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The respondent Court is ordered to allow the intervention of the private prosecutors in behalf of petitioner Lydia C. Hao in the prosecution of the civil aspect of Crim. Case No. 285721, before Br. 22 [MeTC], Manila, allowing Attys. Evelyn Sua-Kho and Ariel Bruno Rivera to actively participate in the proceedings.
Chua moved for reconsideration which was denied.
Dissatisfied, Chua filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari . The petition alleged that the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in: (1) refusing to consider material facts; (2) allowing Siena Realty Corporation to be impleaded as co-petitioner in SCA No. 99-94846 although it was not a party to the criminal complaint in Criminal Case No. 285721; and (3) effectively amending the information against the accused in violation of his constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED. The Order, dated October 5, 1999 as well as the Order, dated December 3, 1999, are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Petitioner had argued before the Court of Appeals that respondent had no authority whatsoever to bring a suit in behalf of the Corporation since there was no Board Resolution authorizing her to file the suit.
For her part, respondent Hao claimed that the suit was brought under the concept of a derivative suit. Respondent maintained that when the directors or trustees refused to file a suit even when there was a demand from stockholders, a derivative suit was allowed.
The Court of Appeals held that the action was indeed a derivative suit, for it alleged that petitioner falsified documents pertaining to projects of the corporation and made it appear that the petitioner was a stockholder and a director of the corporation. According to the appellate court, the corporation was a necessary party to the petition filed with the RTC and even if private respondent filed the criminal case, her act should not divest the Corporation of its right to be a party and present its own claim for damages.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated November 20, 2001.
The pertinent issues in this petition are the following: (1) Is the criminal complaint in the nature of a derivative suit? (2) Is Siena Realty Corporation a proper petitioner in SCA No. 99-94846? and (3) Should private prosecutors be allowed to actively participate in the trial of Criminal Case No. 285721.
On the first issue, petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred when (1) it sustained the lower court in giving due course to respondent's petition in SCA No. 99-94846 despite the fact that the Corporation was not the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 285721, and (2) when it ruled that Criminal Case No. 285721 was in the nature of a derivative suit.
Petitioner avers that a derivative suit is by nature peculiar only to intra-corporate proceedings and cannot be made part of a criminal action. He cites the case of Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas,11 where the court said that an appeal on the civil aspect of a criminal case cannot be treated as a derivative suit. Petitioner asserts that in this case, the civil aspect of a criminal case cannot be treated as a derivative suit, considering that Siena Realty Corporation was not the private complainant.
Moreover, in Western Institute, we said that a mere appeal in the civil aspect cannot be treated as a derivative suit because the appeal lacked the basic requirement that it must be alleged in the complaint that the shareholder is suing on a derivative cause of action for and in behalf of the corporation and other shareholders who wish to join.
In Criminal Case No. 285721, the complaint was instituted by respondent against petitioner for falsifying corporate documents whose subject concerns corporate projects of Siena Realty Corporation. Clearly, Siena Realty Corporation is an offended party. Hence, Siena Realty Corporation has a cause of action. And the civil case for the corporate cause of action is deemed instituted in the criminal action.
In the criminal complaint filed by herein respondent, nowhere is it stated that she is filing the same in behalf and for the benefit of the corporation. Thus, the criminal complaint including the civil aspect thereof could not be deemed in the nature of a derivative suit.
We turn now to the second issue, is the corporation a proper party in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC? Note that the case was titled "Lydia C. Hao, in her own behalf and for the benefit of Siena Realty Corporation v. Francis Chua, and the Honorable Hipolito dela Vega, Presiding Judge, Branch 22, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila." Petitioner before us now claims that the corporation is not a private complainant in Criminal Case No. 285721, and thus cannot be included as appellant in SCA No. 99-94846.
Petitioner invokes the case of Ciudad Real & Dev't. Corporation v. Court of Appeals.22 In Ciudad Real, it was ruled that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it upheld the standing of Magdiwang Realty Corporation as a party to the petition for certiorari , even though it was not a party-in-interest in the civil case before the lower court.
In the present case, respondent claims that the complaint was filed by her not only in her personal capacity, but likewise for the benefit of the corporation. Additionally, she avers that she has exhausted all remedies available to her before she instituted the case, not only to claim damages for herself but also to recover the damages caused to the company.
In Ciudad Real, cited by petitioner, we held that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion when it sanctioned the standing of a corporation to join said petition for certiorari , despite the finality of the trial court's denial of its Motion for Intervention and the subsequent Motion to Substitute and/or Join as Party/Plaintiff.
In the instant case, we find that the recourse of the complainant to the respondent Court of Appeals was proper. The petition was brought in her own name and in behalf of the Corporation. Although, the corporation was not a complainant in the criminal action, the subject of the falsification was the corporation's project and the falsified documents were corporate documents. Therefore, the corporation is a proper party in the petition for certiorari because the proceedings in the criminal case directly and adversely affected the corporation.
Petitioner cites the case of Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo,28 holding that where from the nature of the offense or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense.
Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.31 Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, "[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action."
Petitioner avers, however, that respondent's testimony in the inferior court did not establish nor prove any damages personally sustained by her as a result of petitioner's alleged acts of falsification. Petitioner adds that since no personal damages were proven therein, then the participation of her counsel as private prosecutors, who were supposed to pursue the civil aspect of a criminal case, is not necessary and is without basis.
In the case before us, there was neither a waiver nor a reservation made; nor did the offended party institute a separate civil action. It follows that evidence should be allowed in the criminal proceedings to establish the civil liability arising from the offense committed, and the private offended party has the right to intervene through the private prosecutors.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision, dated June 14, 2001, and the Resolution, dated November 20, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57070, affirming the Order, dated October 5, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19, are AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the private prosecutors are hereby allowed to intervene in behalf of private respondent Lydia Hao in the prosecution of the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 285721 before Branch 22, of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Costs against petitioner.
1 Rollo, pp. 34-43. Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto, and Eliezer R. De Los Santos concurring.
5 CA Rollo, p. 59.
6 Criminal Case No. 285721-CR in some parts of the Records.
7 SCA No. 99-94648 in some parts of the Records.
11 G.R. No. 113032, 21 August 1997, 278 SCRA 216, 226.
14 SEC. 23. The Board of directors or trustees. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year until their successors are elected and qualified.
15 Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 122452, 29 January 2001, 350 SCRA 475, 485, citing Premium Marble Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96551, 4 November 1996, 264 SCRA 11, 17.
16 Gamboa v. Victoriano, No. L-40620, 5 May 1979, 90 SCRA 40, 47.
17 Price v. Gurney, 324 U.S. 100 (1944).
18 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.
19 Section 1(a), Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
20 Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar, supra, note 15 at 485-486, citing Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas, supra, note 11 at 225.
21 Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121171, 29 December 1998, 300 SCRA 579, 615, citing III A.F. Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 561-562 (1996).
22 G.R. No. 107888, 4 January 1994, 229 SCRA 71.
23 SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari . 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 judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
24 Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116945, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 499, 507.
25 Flores v. Joven, G.R. No. 129874, 27 December 2002, 394 SCRA 339, 344-345; Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504, 17 March 2000, 385 Phil. 208, 221-224; Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112387, 13 October 1994, 237 SCRA 575, 582.
26 No. L-56340, 24 June 1983, 122 SCRA 885.
28 Nos. L-41213-14, 5 October 1976, 73 SCRA 306, 313.
29 Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., Nos. L-78911-25, 11 December 1987, 156 SCRA 325, 329-330.
30 Article 104, Revised Penal Code.
31 Section 16, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
32 Corpuz v. Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1106, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 83, 90.

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