Case Digest (G.R. No. 140423)
Facts:
Jose Luis Angel B. Orosa v. Alberto C. Roa, G.R. No. 140423, July 14, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jose Luis Angel B. Orosa, a dentist, filed on November 27, 1996 a complaint-affidavit for libel (I.S. No. 96-5442) with the Pasig City Prosecution Office against respondent Alberto C. Roa, also a dentist, arising from an article by respondent entitled “Truth vs. Rumors: Questions against Dr. Orosa” published in the March–April 1996 issue of the Dental Trading Post. Petitioner alleged the article defamed him by impugning his integrity as the topnotcher in the May 1994 dental board examinations.After preliminary investigation, the Pasig City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint, concluding the publication was a bona fide communication on matters of public concern entitled to privileged protection under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Chief State Prosecutor, Jovencito Zuno, set aside the City Prosecutor’s dismissal (the Zuno Resolution) and directed the filing of an Information for libel in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, which resulted in Criminal Case No. 114517.
Respondent appealed the Zuno Resolution to the Secretary of Justice, who on October 28, 1998 reversed the Zuno Resolution and directed the Pasig City Prosecutor to withdraw the Information. The prosecution filed a Motion to Withdraw Information in the RTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Secretary’s decision was denied on May 12, 1999. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 53190.
The CA dismissed petitioner’s Rule 43 petition by Resolution dated July 8, 1999, holding that the DOJ and the Pasig City Prosecution Office are not among the quasi-judicial agencies enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 43 and that the petition was prematurely filed because the RTC then had control of the case and petitioner should first oppose the Motion to Withdraw in the trial court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on October 14, 1999. Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for review (G.R. No. 140423), challenging the CA’s conclusions including (a) that DOJ resol...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for review under Rule 43 a proper mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a Secretary of Justice resolution directing the prosecutor to withdraw an Information?
- Was petitioner’s Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals premature because the trial court had control of the case and judicial remedies in the RTC had not been pursued (i.e., was there a failure to exhaust administrative/judicial remedies)?
- Should the Court of Appeals (or this Court) have resolved the substantive issues raised (including the availability of Rule 65 relief and whether the article was defamatory, atten...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)