G.R. No. L-32293 - Ocampo vs. Buenaventura

On September 11, 1966, respondents Fernando Buenaventura, Jose Vasquez, Adolfo Belderol, and Potenciano Adobes, Jr.—all members of the Cebu Police Department—conducted the arrest and detention of several minors.
The detainees included petitioner Roberto Ocampo’s son, Edgar Ocampo; his nephews Paul, Jade, Cesar, and Julius (all bearing the surname Ocampo); and a friend of the minors, George Namok.
The arrest was made on the ground of allegedly violating Section 1 of Ordinance No. 345, which amended Ordinance No. 228, thereby penalizing the wandering, sauntering, or loitering of minors in any street, wood, or alley.

The City Fiscal of Cebu filed an information in the city court resulting in the conviction of the minors for violating the said ordinance.
On appeal to the Court of First Instance, Judge Tantuico acquitted the minors on March 3, 1969.

The acquittal was premised on Section 3 of Ordinance No. 228, which exempted minors engaged in wholesome and decent assemblages such as birthday parties, thus ruling that no ordinance was violated.

On September 19, 1966, petitioner Roberto Ocampo filed a complaint with the City Mayor’s office charging the respondents with serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and commission of a felony.
On August 8, 1967, the City Mayor issued Administrative Order No. 157, which exonerated the respondents (the policemen).
Subsequently, on March 17, 1969, a separate complaint was lodged with the Police Commission (POLCOM) against the same respondents for similar charges.

The administrative case before POLCOM remained pending at the time of the interrelated civil proceedings.

On June 4, 1969, the respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Roberto Ocampo.
On May 22, 1970, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and/or suspend the trial of Civil Case No. R-11320 on two main grounds:

The respondent Judge Mateo Canonoy, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Cebu, denied the motion on June 1, 1970.

The denial was apparently based on the fact that the respondents had already filed an answer which included special defenses incorporating the grounds cited in the motion.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
In the meantime, respondent Fernando Buenaventura died and was subsequently substituted by his widow, Guillerma Cosca Buenaventura, along with his heirs.

Whether the court a quo abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and/or suspend the trial on the merits of the damages suit.

Determining the applicability of the prejudicial question in a civil suit not based on a criminal prosecution.
Ascertaining whether the civil suit for damages is premature given the pendency of the separate administrative proceeding before POLCOM.

Whether the principle of res judicata could bar the civil damage suit, based on the earlier exoneration of the respondents by Administrative Order No. 157 issued by the City Mayor.

Evaluating the requirements for res judicata such as jurisdiction, finality, judgment on the merits, and identity of the parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
Examining whether the decision of the City Mayor’s office, rendered without proper jurisdiction in administrative matters involving police personnel, can be invoked to defeat the present civil action.

Whether the filing of an answer by the respondents precludes the later filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.

Considering the provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Section 2 of Rule 9 which authorizes the filing of a motion to dismiss at any stage of the proceedings.