Facts:
Alfredo Ching, Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PBMI), executed thirteen trust receipts in late 1980 in favor of
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, whereby the bank imported goods and released possession to PBMI under trust receipt terms; the goods were not returned nor were proceeds remitted, amounting to P6,940,280.66, and the bank filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. After preliminary investigation the City Prosecutor initially found probable cause and filed Informations docketed as Criminal Cases No. 86-42169 to 86-42181 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, but the Minister of Justice later reversed that finding on December 23, 1987 and ordered withdrawal of the Informations, and the RTC granted a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations did not amount to estafa; following this, the Supreme Court decided
Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordonez (1990) clarifying the scope of
P.D. No. 115. The bank refiled the complaint on February 27, 1995; the City Prosecutor on December 8, 1995 found no probable cause, but the
Secretary of Justice on July 13, 1999 issued Resolution No. 250 reversing that finding and directed filing of Informations for violation of
P.D. No. 115 in relation to
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, which led to thirteen Informations consolidated before RTC, Branch 52. Petitioner sought relief by petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition on April 22, 2004 on procedural grounds for a defective certification against forum shopping and on the merits for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice; the CA denied reconsideration on June 28, 2004. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Was the certification of non-forum shopping incorporated in petitioner’s CA petition defective such that dismissal was proper? Was the
Secretary of Justice guilty of grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Prosecutor’s no-probable-cause finding and ordering the filing of Informations under
P.D. No. 115 in relation to
Article 315, paragraph 1(b)?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: