Case Digest (G.R. No. 208587)
Facts:
JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc., Helen D. Dagdagan, Patrick Pacis, Kenneth Pacis, and Shirley Dominguez v. Cecilia Liclican, Norma D. Isip, and Purita Dominguez, G.R. No. 208587, July 29, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.At the annual stockholders meeting of JMD on December 29, 2007 in Baguio City, a contest arose over who were entitled to vote and who were the duly elected directors and officers. Respondent Cecilia Liclican presided; respondents Norma Isip and Purita Dominguez were present; petitioners Helen Dagdagan, Patrick Pacis, Kenneth Pacis, and Shirley Dominguez also attended. Petitioners Patrick and Kenneth were allegedly prevented from voting because the shares remained in the names of their deceased relatives and there had been no settlement of estates. After respondents staged a walkout, petitioners proceeded with an election and claimed the offices; respondents later executed their own board resolution asserting a different set of directors and officers.
Petitioners (as the group claiming to be the corporation's officers) filed Civil Case No. 6623-R in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, for nullification of meetings, election and acts of directors and officers, injunction and other reliefs; that case was referred for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) to RTC Branch 7 (presided by Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora). While the intra-corporate dispute was pending, petitioners Dagdagan and Patrick Pacis executed two affidavit-complaints (I.S. No. 3011 and I.S. No. 3118) accusing respondents Liclican and Isip of qualified theft for alleged withdrawals and checks drawn against JMD accounts.
The City Prosecutor recommended filing informations; the criminal informations were raffled to RTC Branch 7 and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 29175-R and 29176-R. On March 10, 2009 Judge Tiongson-Tabora issued orders finding probable cause and directing that warrants of arrest be issued against respondents (bail fixed at Php 80,000). Warrants were thus issued.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing among other things that a prejudicial question existed because the intra-corporate dispute in Civil Case No. 6623-R would determine who had authority to institute and prosecute criminal actions in the corporation’s name. The CA, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 108617, granted the petition and annulled the March 10, 2009 orders as issued with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a January 13, 2013 Resolution. Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, RTC Branch 59 rendered a Judgment on May 6, 2011 declaring peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Civil Case No. 6623-R a prejudicial question that should have barred or suspended the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 29175‑R and 29176‑R?
- Did the RTC Branch 7 commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the March 10, 2009 orders finding probable cause and directing issuance ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)