Title
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. vs. Asistio
Case
G.R. No. 243604
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2023
Petitioner accused respondents of fraud in a casino "past-posting" scheme. RTC acquitted Clavito; CA dismissed certiorari petition due to unserved resolution, lacking jurisdiction over Clavito. SC affirmed, citing jurisdiction requires service or voluntary submission.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 243604)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Petitioner Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (petitioner) operates Solaire Resort and Casino in Parañaque City.
  • The case stems from an Estafa case filed by petitioner against respondents Josedelio Eliz Meneses Asistio (respondent Asistio), a casino dealer, and Anthony Noveno Clavito (respondent Clavito), a casino patron.
  • Respondents were accused of engaging in "past-posting" or "late-betting," a fraudulent scheme where bets are placed after the game's outcome is known, resulting in a loss of P220,000.00 for petitioner.

Criminal Proceedings

  • Petitioner filed a criminal case against respondents for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Respondent Asistio remains at large, while respondent Clavito was arrested, posted bail, and pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
  • During the trial, respondent Clavito jumped bail, and his counsel withdrew due to inability to contact him.
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted respondent Clavito, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Estafa beyond reasonable doubt.

Petition for Certiorari

  • Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge.
  • The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition as against respondent Clavito, citing lack of jurisdiction over his person due to the unserved resolution.

Issue:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito.

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's resolutions.
  • The CA correctly dismissed the case as against respondent Clavito because it failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person due to the unserved resolution.
  • The Court held that jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a certiorari case is acquired through service of the court's resolution or voluntary submission, which did not occur in this case.

Ratio:

  • Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a certiorari case is essential and is acquired through service of the court's resolution or the respondent's voluntary submission.
  • The CA did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent Clavito because its resolution remained unserved, and respondent Clavito did not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction.
  • The failure to serve the resolution on respondent Clavito justified the dismissal of the case as against him.
  • The Court emphasized that a party who fails to participate in the proceedings cannot claim deprivation of due process, as such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to be heard.


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.