Case Digest (G.R. No. 148004)
Facts:
Vincent E. Omictin v. Hon. Court of Appeals (Special Twelfth Division) and George I. Lagos, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007, First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Vincent E. Omictin, Operations Manager Ad Interim of Saag Phils., Inc., instituted a criminal complaint for two counts of estafa with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati against respondent George I. Lagos, alleging that Lagos refused to return two company vehicles entrusted to him while he was president of Saag Phils., Inc. The prosecutor recommended indictment on February 26, 1999, and the case was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Makati as Criminal Case No. 99-633, People v. George I. Lagos.Private respondent Lagos filed motions in the trial court: a motion to recuse the presiding judge (after an order dated May 28, 1999 denying other motions) and, on June 24, 1999, a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question arising from an earlier intra-corporate action he filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on January 7, 1999 (SEC Case No. 01-99-6185). Lagos’s SEC petition sought, among other reliefs, the declaration of nullity of the appointments of Alex Y. Tan (President Ad Interim) and petitioner Omictin (Operations Manager Ad Interim) of Saag Phils., Inc., distribution of dividends, recovery of profits, involuntary dissolution and appointment of a receiver, and injunctive relief against several parties including Saag (S) Pte. Ltd.
The trial court denied Lagos’s motion to suspend and to recuse in orders dated September 8, 1999 and October 29, 1999. Lagos timely petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65. On June 30, 2000 the CA concluded that a prejudicial question existed because the intra-corporate action raised issues—chiefly the authority of Tan and Omictin to act for Saag Phils., Inc.—that could determine the presence of an essential element (a valid demand) in the estafa case; the CA therefore granted suspension of the criminal proceedings pending termination of the SEC case, but affirmed the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion. The CA’s March 5, 2001 resolution denied reconsideration as moot in light of a terminated petition for review to the Supreme Court.
After the enactment of the Securities Regulation Code (Republic Act No. 8799) and A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC, the SEC matter was transferred to the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 214 (docketed as SEC ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared a prejudicial question to exist and ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 99-633?
- Is the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the only plain, speedy and adequate remedy in th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)