G.R. No. 183141 - Catindig vs. People

A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed by petitioner Edgardo H. Catindig challenging the orders and resolution of the RTC of Calamba City (Branch 35) in Criminal Case No. 13850-05-C.
The orders under scrutiny include:

An order dated 24 May 2006 directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest for private respondent Atty. Daniel P. FandiAo, Jr. (and his co-accused) and suspending them from their positions as members of the Board of Directors of the Calamba Water District (CWD) for 60 days.
An order dated 5 July 2006 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. FandiAo and his co-accused.

In 2001, a COA audit team conducted a rate audit of CWD covering its 2001 operations and financial transactions.
The audit uncovered resolutions by the Board of Directors that granted questionable benefits and allowances, totaling ₱15,455,490.14, divided among:

The COA audit report identified the violation of provisions in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198 (as amended), which limits directors to receiving only per diem for attendance in board meetings.

Based on the COA findings, petitioner Catindig (an incumbent member of the Calamba City Sangguniang Pambayan) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on 7 July 2004 against Atty. FandiAo and the other board members for acts constituting gross violations under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended.
The Ombudsman, convinced by the audit report, recommended the filing of two Informations for violation of Section 3(e) against the accused, which were subsequently docketed with the RTC of Calamba City.

Two separate Informations were filed on 26 August 2005 against the respondents in Criminal Cases No. 13850-05-C and No. 13851-05-C.
In Criminal Case No. 13850-05-C, the RTC Branch 35 found probable cause on 24 May 2006 for issuing a warrant of arrest against the respondents and ordered their suspension pendente lite from the CWD board.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondents was denied by the RTC on 5 July 2006.

Private respondent Atty. FandiAo was the sole respondent who elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
He contested the two RTC orders alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On 14 September 2007, the Court of Appeals granted his petition, annulling and setting aside the RTC orders, based on findings that:

The benefits and allowances had been received long before any declaration of illegality, implying they were received in good faith.
In the absence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, no probable cause existed to sustain the prosecution under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Petitioner Catindig argued that the petition should have been limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion rather than issues on the merits.
He contended that:

The Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the factual merits by pronouncing good faith on the part of the respondents regarding the disputed benefits and allowances.
The petition should have been dismissed outright on the ground of res judicata due to the substantial similarity of issues with a prior case (CA-G.R. SP No. 92474) that had been dismissed.

The petitioner maintained that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is meant solely to rectify jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment or determinations on the merits of the acts involved.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by addressing substantive factual issues regarding the good faith reception of benefits and allowances when the remedy of certiorari is intended solely to correct errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the Court of Appeals failed in its duty by not dismissing the case on the ground of res judicata, given that the issues were substantially the same as those in CA-G.R. SP No. 92474 which were already finally dismissed.