Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14646)
Facts:
Mariano Benitez Alias Yu Bon Chiong and Rufino Ibanez v. Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. and Uy Liam Chiu Alias Ong Ho, G.R. No. L-14646. May 30, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Mariano Benitez alias Yu Bon Chiong (debtor) and Rufino Ibanez (mortgagor) seek prohibition against respondent Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, to prevent him from proceeding with an investigation (Investigation Slip No. 15190) charging petitioners with falsification of deeds of mortgage; respondent Uy Liam Chiu alias Ong Ho is the complaining party in the criminal matter. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Ching Siok Eng (wife of Yu Bon Chiong) appear in the underlying civil litigation.
On May 4, 1946, Yu Bon Chiong (debtor), Ibanez, Ong Ho and Ching Siok Eng executed a real estate mortgage in favor of PNB to secure a P50,000 indebtedness; the mortgage was amended on March 26, 1947 to secure an increased indebtedness of P170,000. After default, PNB brought foreclosure in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal as Civil Case No. 994 on December 17, 1949; that case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and eventually certified to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. L-14244.
On July 24, 1957, Ong Ho filed Civil Case No. 33251 in the CFI of Manila against PNB, petitioners and heirs of Ching Siok Eng seeking annulment of the two mortgages on the ground that his signatures were forged. The defendants pleaded the pendency of the Rizal foreclosure case as a special defense and Ong Ho contended at the hearing that he was not the same Ong Ho named in Civil Case No. 994. Thereafter, on June 16, 1958, Ong Ho filed a criminal complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila (I.S. No. 15190) charging petitioners with falsification of the mortgage deeds used in Civil Case No. 994.
Petitioners moved (July 2, 1958) before the City Fiscal to dismiss or suspend the criminal investigation on the ground that issues in the civil action were prejudicial and should be resolved first; the City Fiscal denied the motion on September 24, 1958 and likewise denied reconsideration. Petitioners then filed this petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction, alleging that the City Fiscal acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and that there was no pl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the civil action (CFI No. 33251) present a prejudicial question that requires suspension of the criminal investigation (I.S. No. 15190)?
- Should the petition for prohibition (and the preliminary injunction issued) be granted to restrain the City Fiscal from proceeding with the cr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)