Case Digest (G.R. No. 75079)
Facts:
Solemnidad M. Buaya v. The Honorable Wenceslao M. Polo, Branch XIX, Regional Trial Court of Manila, and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. L-75079, January 26, 1989, Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Solemnidad M. Buaya was an insurance agent for private respondent Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (CBIC) and, under her agency contract, was obliged to make periodic reports, account for transactions, and remit premium collections to CBIC’s principal office in Manila. An audit of petitioner’s accounts allegedly disclosed a shortage of P358,850.72, and CBIC filed a criminal information for estafa (Criminal Case No. 83-22252) charging that petitioner collected premiums and failed to remit P358,850 (the information alleges P358,850.00) during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982, in the City of Manila.
Petitioner moved to quash/dismiss the information on grounds that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila lacked jurisdiction because she was based in Cebu City and the collections were made there, and that the subject matter was purely civil because CBIC had separately filed Civil Case No. 83-14931 involving the same amount. The presiding judge of RTC Manila, Branch XIX, Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo, denied the motion to dismiss in an Order dated March 26, 1986, and subsequently denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari in the Court seeking annulment of those two orders of denial. Respondents argued that interlocutory denials of motions to dismiss or quash are generally not reviewable by certiorari and must be raised on appeal from final judgment (citing Sec. 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari proper to review the RTC’s interlocutory denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?
- Does the Regional Trial Court of Manila have jurisdiction over the estafa information filed against petitioner?
- Does the filing of a separate civil action by the private respondent make the subject matter purely civil and therefore bar the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)