Case Digest (G.R. No. 148072)
Facts:
Francisco Magestrado, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse two Court of Appeals resolutions (dated 5 March 2001 and 3 May 2001) that dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition in CA‑G.R. SP No. 63293 and denied reconsideration.Private respondent Elena M. Librojo lodged a criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (docketed I.S. No. 98‑3900). After preliminary investigation, the prosecutor filed an information for perjury against petitioner in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City; the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 before MeTC‑Branch 43. The information alleged that petitioner knowingly swore to a false affidavit of loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. N‑173163, when in truth the title had been mortgaged to Librojo as collateral for a loan.
While the criminal case was pending, petitioner filed motions to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question, asserting that two civil actions — Civil Case No. Q‑98‑34308 (for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title and Damages) pending before RTC‑Branch 77, and Civil Case No. Q‑98‑34349 (for collection of a sum of money) pending before RTC‑Branch 84 — should be resolved first. MeTC‑Branch 43 denied the motion for suspension on 14 July 1999 and denied reconsideration on 19 October 1999.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 83 (docketed Q‑99‑39358), challenging MeTC‑Branch 43’s denial of the motion to suspend. RTC‑Branch 83 dismissed that petition on 14 March 2000 and denied reconsideration on 21 December 2000. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by filing another Petition for Certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 63293). On 5 March 2001 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 10, Rule 44 (as it characterized it), and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 3 May 2001.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to question (a) whether the RTC orders could only be reviewed by appeal under Rule 41/Rule 44, and (b) whether RTC‑Branch ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s recourse to the Court of Appeals by Petition for Certiorari the proper remedy, or should he have appealed RTC‑Branch 83’s dismissal under Section 2, Rule 41 (or Section 10, Rule 44 as the CA stated)?
- Did RTC‑Branch 83 commit grave abuse of discretion in denying suspension of Criminal Case No. 90721 on the ground that Civil Case Nos. Q‑98‑34308 and Q‑98‑34349 p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)