G.R. No. 125986 - Luxuria Homes, Inc., and/or Aida M. Posadas vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, James Builder Construction and/or Jaime T. Bravo

On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez, President of the Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency, filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City.
The complaint was against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for publishing an article entitled "Back to the Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance with Coalition" on its website on August 25, 2005, which was alleged to be highly defamatory and libelous against the Yuchengco family and, in particular, petitioners Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen Y. Dee.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City found probable cause to indict 16 members, officers, and/or trustees of PEPCI, including respondents such as Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Relova Santos, John Joseph Gutierrez, and others, for 13 counts of libel.
A criminal information (I.S. No. 1-11-11995) was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 139, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-875.

Respondents, through their motion (filed by Bonifacio, Upano, Ortuoste, and Pereche, Jr.), challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC on the grounds that the criminal information failed to allege the precise location where the article was printed, first published, or where the offended parties reside.
On May 23, 2007, the RTC quashed the criminal information for libel, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied on February 11, 2008.

On February 29, 2008, the People of the Philippines, through private prosecutors and with the conformity of public prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr., filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the RTC’s dismissal.
Petitioners (Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen Y. Dee) filed their Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants in accordance with the direction of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) intervened by seeking a suspension of the filing period pending further directives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and later submitted a Manifestation and Motion stating that it had no information about the case and should be excused from filing the appellate brief.
Instead of filing an appellee’s brief, the respondents moved for the reconsideration of the CA’s January 21, 2009 Resolution (which had denied their motion to dismiss appeal) based on the failure of the brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants to include the required conformity of the OSG.

On September 15, 2009, the CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that the OSG had not given its conformity, holding that the criminal aspect of a case could only be appealed by the proper representative of the People.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by petitioners was denied by the CA on September 2, 2010, reaffirming the dismissal of the criminal appeal.

Whether petitioners, being merely private complainants, have the legal personality to appeal an RTC order dismissing a criminal case for libel.
Whether an appeal challenging the dismissal of the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction can be validly filed without the conformity and representation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The proper remedial procedure when there is an apparent omission of the OSG’s conformity in filing an appeal on the criminal aspect of a case.