Case Digest (A.M. No. 2268-MJ)
Facts:
In the consolidated cases G.R. No. 214925 and G.R. No. 214965, the main actors are petitioners John Labsky P. Maximo and Robert M. Panganiban (both Directors of ASB Realty Corporation) and Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr. (the respondent). The events surrounding the case date back to November 23, 2010, when Villapando filed a complaint against Maximo, Panganiban, and other ASB Realty Corp. officers for violations of several sections of Presidential Decree No. 957, which aims to protect buyers of condominiums and subdivisions. The specific allegations included failure to comply with the registration of contracts to sell and deeds of sale, as well as violations concerning the time of completion of the condominium unit and issuance of title.
Initially, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City dismissed the complaint on July 12, 2011, citing the developer's good faith efforts due to liquidity issues leading to rehabilitation proceedings. Following this, Maximo and Panganib
Case Digest (A.M. No. 2268-MJ)
Facts:
- Parties and Property Interests
- Villapando is the assignee of Enhanced Electronics and Communications Services, Inc.’s Condominium Unit No. 2821 and its parking slot at the Legazpi Place in Makati City.
- Petitioners John Labsky P. Maximo and Robert M. Panganiban are directors of ASB Realty Corporation (now St. Francis Square Realty Corp.), the developer of the condominium unit.
- Initiation of Criminal and Civil Actions
- On November 23, 2010, Villapando filed a criminal complaint before the Makati City Office of the City Prosecutor alleging that Maximo, Panganiban, and other officers of ASB Realty Corporation had violated Sections 17, 20, and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree) by failing to register contracts to sell, complete the development on time, and issue the title.
- The complaint was dismissed by the prosecution (OCP-Makati) in its Resolution dated July 12, 2011, on the ground that the developer encountered liquidity problems and had filed a petition for rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which demonstrated good faith.
- Counter-Complaints and Allegations of Perjury
- On February 24, 2011, Maximo filed a criminal complaint for perjury, incriminating innocent person, and unjust vexation against Villapando. Panganiban filed a similar complaint on October 10, 2011.
- The counter-allegation centered on Villapando’s complaint affidavit which stated that Maximo and Panganiban were officers/directors of ASB at the time when a deed of sale was executed (February 28, 1997), although both petitioners asserted they were minors then and not yet employed by ASB.
- Assistant City Prosecutors (ACP Canobas and ACP Vermug, Jr.) subsequently issued resolutions finding probable cause for perjury against Villapando.
- Proceedings on Motions and the Filing of the Information
- Villapando filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the resolutions finding probable cause, raising issues regarding:
- The alleged lack of prior written authority from the City Prosecutor in filing the Information.
- Whether the facts charged constituted an offense given that violations of PD No. 957 occur only after contract execution and are considered continuing offenses.
- A Motion to Quash the Information was filed by Villapando, which was denied by the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) in an order dated November 11, 2011, based on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
- Villapando then moved for reconsideration of the METC Order, which was again denied on February 11, 2013, with the prosecution’s motion to amend the Information being granted simultaneously.
- Escalation to the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals
- On April 25, 2013, Villapando elevated the issue to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City by filing a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
- The RTC, in its Decision dated May 30, 2013, denied the petition and affirmed the lower court’s orders, relying on the presumption that the Information was validly filed given the accompanying certifications and the absence of a contestation by the City Prosecutor.
- Dissatisfied, Villapando filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 31, 2013. Alongside, Maximo and Panganiban filed separate petitions for review on certiorari alleging:
- The Information was filed without proper prior written authority of the City Prosecutor.
- The filing was tainted by deficiencies such as false verification and non-impleading of the People of the Philippines.
- On June 13, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision reversing the RTC’s ruling by quashing the Information on jurisdictional grounds and dismissing the criminal case against Villapando without prejudice to the filing of a new Information.
- Following this, both parties filed motions for reconsideration with the CA, which were ultimately denied on October 16, 2014.
- Consolidation and the Supreme Court Proceedings
- Maximo and Panganiban filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 214925), asserting that:
- The CA erred in entertaining Villapando’s petition and failing to dismiss the case for non-impleading of an indispensable party.
- The false verification and absence of evidence of proper authority in the filing of the Information were fatal defects.
- Villapando, in a separate petition (G.R. No. 214965), countered that:
- The alleged violations of PD No. 957 are continuing offenses committed after the execution of the contract to sell, not at its inception.
- The remedy of appeal was not plain and speedy, thus justifying his resort to certiorari given the gravamen of the interlocutory order against his motion to quash.
- A Motion to Consolidate the two petitions was filed and approved by the Supreme Court, which then rendered a decision addressing the respective assigned errors and legal arguments raised by both parties.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Validity and Proper Filing of the Information
- Whether the filing of the Amended Information, which purportedly relied on a certification of prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor, was valid.
- Whether there was a valid delegation of authority from the City Prosecutor to the Assistant City Prosecutor to approve and sign the Information.
- Appropriateness of the Remedy Chosen by Villapando
- Whether the filing of a special civil action for certiorari to assail the denial of the motion to quash is the proper remedy, considering that a denial of a motion to quash is ordinarily an interlocutory order not appealable by that route.
- Whether the petition for certiorari was being used to avoid trial and the ordinary appellate process.
- Allegation of Forum Shopping
- Whether Villapando committed forum shopping by simultaneously raising the same issues before different judicial forums, including the DOJ and the CA, regarding the same alleged defects in the Information and the nature of the offense under PD No. 957.
- Substantive Nature of the Offense Charged
- Whether the violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of PD No. 957—alleged to be continuing offenses—were properly committed at the time of the contract’s execution or later, thus affecting the charge of perjury against Villapando.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)