Title
Barangay Dasmarinas vs. Creative Play Corner School
Case
G.R. No. 169942
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2011
Barangay Dasmariñas accused CPC of falsifying documents; case dismissed due to procedural lapses, affirmed by courts for non-compliance with rules.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169942)

Facts:

Background of the Case:

  • Petitioner Barangay Dasmariñas, through Barangay Captain Ma. Encarnacion R. Legaspi, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Prosecutor of Makati on June 28, 2004, docketed as I.S. No. 04-F-10389.
  • The complaint charged respondents Creative Play Corner School (CPC) and its alleged owners (Dr. Amado J. Piamonte, Regina Piamonte Tambunting, Celine Concepcion Lebron, and Cecille Cuna Colina) with Falsification and Use of Falsified Documents.
  • Petitioner alleged that respondents falsified and used a Barangay Clearance and Official Receipt purportedly issued by the Office of the Barangay Captain of Dasmariñas Village, Makati City.

Respondents' Defense:

  • Respondents Lebron and Colina denied falsifying the documents and argued that petitioner failed to prove their ownership of CPC or identify who committed the alleged falsification.
  • Tambunting and Piamonte echoed these arguments, with Tambunting claiming the documents were not received by any relevant office and Piamonte asserting he had no involvement in CPC's operations.

Prosecutor's Ruling:

  • Assistant City Prosecutor Carolina Esguerra-Ochoa recommended dismissing the case due to lack of probable cause, citing the absence of evidence from police laboratory tests or law enforcement agencies confirming falsification.
  • City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi approved the dismissal on November 4, 2004.

Department of Justice (DOJ) Proceedings:

  • Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the DOJ, arguing that Legaspi's affidavit and attached documents were sufficient to establish probable cause.
  • The DOJ dismissed the petition on February 21, 2005, finding no error in the prosecutor's resolution and noting the petition was filed late. A Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on April 25, 2005.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings:

  • Petitioner sought extensions to file a Petition for Review before the CA, citing heavy workload and a sudden death in the family of the handling lawyer.
  • The CA denied the second and final motions for extension, dismissing the petition for being filed beyond the allowed period.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Review based on a technicality without considering the substantive merits.
  2. Whether the CA erred in not considering that respondents were not prejudiced by the delay in filing the petition.
  3. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition despite the existence of probable cause to file criminal charges against respondents.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the CA's dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the proper remedy for challenging administrative resolutions.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.