Case Digest (G.R. No. L-51354)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-51354)
Facts:
Wilfredo Asutilla v. Philippine National Bank (Tagbilaran and Tubigon Branches, Bohol), G.R. No. 51354, January 15, 1986, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.On March 1, 1971 a collision occurred in Tubigon, Bohol, between a Philippine National Bank (PNB) Toyota jeep and a Volkswagen Kombi driven by petitioner Wilfredo Asutilla. The PNB jeep was registered to the bank and ordinarily driven by Rene Arcaya but at the time was being driven by Emmanuel Ceballos, both PNB employees. Following the accident, two criminal complaints were filed in the Municipal Court of Tubigon: on April 20, 1971 Acting Chief of Police Virgilio Dizon filed Criminal Case No. 1396 against Asutilla for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property; on April 27, 1971 Chief of Police Leopoldo R. Bagolor filed Criminal Case No. 1397 against Arcaya and Ceballos for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property and Physical Injuries.
On May 15, 1971 Asutilla filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch III (the trial Court), seeking to restrain the Municipal Court from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 1396; he alleged the complaint was baseless, malicious, and filed to coerce an amicable settlement with his employer. The trial Court issued a restraining order the same day, set a hearing, and on July 27, 1971 issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining prosecution of Criminal Case No. 1396; a reconsideration motion by respondents was denied.
Petitioner moved for Judgment on the Pleadings on September 3, 1971. Although a merits hearing was scheduled for September 24, 1971 (postponed by respondents), the trial Court on September 25, 1971 rendered a Decision granting the petition, declaring the preliminary injunction permanent, and ordering dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1396. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. No. 53186‑R), which, treating the matter as raising the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings and the injunction, reversed the trial Court. The Court of Appeals held the trial Court had committed grave abuse of discretion in permanently enjoining the prosecution, dissolved the writ, and ordered Criminal Case No. 1396 reinstated and heard on the merits together with Criminal Case No. 1397 if still pending.
The question of law was certified to the Supreme Court by the then Court of Appeals; the matter reached this Court in the First Division for resolution of the propriety of the trial Court’s judgment on the pleadings and its issuance of the permanent injunction.
Issues:
- Was the trial Court correct in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of petitioner and entering a permanent injunction dismissing Criminal Case No. 1396?
- Was the trial Court's permanent injunction enjoining the criminal prosecution proper under the circumstances, or did it constitute grave abuse of discretion that warranted reversal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)