G.R. No. 78555 - Bulaong vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners: Romulo S. Bulaong and Gil P. de Guzman.
Respondents: The Honorable Court of Appeals, the People of the Philippines, and the Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch CXIV, Pasay City.

On March 12, 1984, petitioner Bulaong filed an action for a sum of money (Civil Case No. RTC-67-1) against Vicente Vistan, Leonardo Buenaventura, and Conrado Sta. Maria at the RTC of Zambales.
Subsequently, Vicente Vistan filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission of contract with damages.
The civil cases were consolidated and remained pending trial.

Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for estafa on November 21, 1984 with the Office of the City Fiscal of Pasay City.
As part of the estafa investigation, Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman submitted a reply-affidavit on January 21, 1985, which contained statements alleged to be libelous.
The reply-affidavit contained explicit assertions accusing respondents—specifically, Leonardo Buenaventura and Vicente Vistan—of engaging in swindling and dishonest practices, implicating them as high-caliber fraudsters.

Respondents (Vistan and Buenaventura) initiated a libel complaint against petitioner Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman.
The City Fiscal of Pasay began an investigation and later filed an information for libel on October 11, 1985.
The information was subsequently amended on July 1, 1986 to include detailed allegations regarding the libelous content in the reply-affidavit.

Petitioners further argued that the reply-affidavit was filed as a necessary compliance with the estafa complaint, making it an absolutely privileged communication.
The Assistant City Fiscal opposed the motion to quash.
On August 19, 1986, the RTC of Pasay denied the motion to quash.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners but was denied on October 17, 1976.
Ultimately, petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction, which was dismissed on April 13, 1987.

The petitioners then sought review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting:

The failure to determine that the preliminary investigation partook in the nature of judicial or official proceedings, thereby qualifying the communication as absolutely privileged.
The denial of equal protection under the law.

Whether the reply-affidavit, filed in the course of the preliminary investigation in the estafa case, falls within the ambit of absolutely privileged communications.
Whether the alleged privileged status of the reply-affidavit precludes the filing of an information for libel.

Whether the fiscal had proper jurisdiction and authority to file the libel information against petitioners, notwithstanding the contention that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

Whether certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper remedies for challenging an interlocutory order denying a motion to quash.
Whether the petitioner’s right to an immediate appellate remedy was improperly asserted instead of proceeding with the trial on the merits.