Case Digest (G.R. No. 143591) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr. et al. v. Magdaleno M. PeAa, decided on November 23, 2007 under G.R. No. 143591, respondent Magdaleno PeAa filed a civil action for recovery of agency compensation, damages, and attorney’s fees against Urban Bank and petitioners—Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo E. Manuel, Jr., Eric L. Lee, P. Siervo H. Dizon, Benjamin de Leon, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., and Ben Yu Lim, Jr.—before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City, seeking enforcement of an alleged contract of agency. The petitioners moved to dismiss, attaching four documents indicating that PeAa had been appointed agent by Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), not Urban Bank or the petitioners. PeAa then filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Bago City, alleging that the four documents were falsified, and invoked the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code for “Introducing Falsified Documents in a Judicial Proceeding.” Th Case Digest (G.R. No. 143591) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Civil case antecedent
- Magdaleno Peá instituted Civil Case No. 754 before RTC Branch 62 of Negros Occidental, Bago City, against Urban Bank and petitioners for recovery of “agent’s compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees,” alleging an agency contract to guard Urban Bank’s property in Pasay City.
- Petitioners moved to dismiss, contending they never appointed Peá as agent; they attached four documents (two letters signed or unsigned by purported ISCI officers and a memorandum) to show that respondent’s agency was allegedly with Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), not with them.
- Criminal proceedings
- Peá filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the City Prosecutor in Bago City, alleging the four documents introduced in Civil Case No. 754 were falsified, that petitioners knowingly used them in court, and charging them with four counts of Introducing Falsified Documents (second paragraph, Art. 172, RPC).
- The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed Informations before the MTCC of Bago City as Criminal Cases Nos. 6683–6686; the MTCC issued warrants of arrest.
- Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants and/or for Reinvestigation, arguing lack of preliminary investigation, denial of right to submit counter-affidavits, absence of probable cause, and presence of a prejudicial question pending in the civil case; the MTCC denied the motion on November 13, 1998.
- Special civil action and Supreme Court review
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666 dated June 20, 2000.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 and secured a TRO on August 2, 2000 enjoining further MTCC proceedings.
Issues:
- Whether, for an offense not cognizable by the RTC and not covered by summary procedure, a finding of probable cause is required before filing an Information.
- Whether a complaint-affidavit containing allegations not within the personal knowledge of the complainant can suffice as basis for probable cause.
- Whether a judge must afford the accused the right to submit counter-affidavits before issuing a warrant of arrest when the offense is MTCC-cognizable and PI is not mandatory.
- Whether a criminal prosecution may be restrained by injunction or prohibition.
- Whether the Supreme Court itself can determine the existence of probable cause.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)