G.R. No. 46180 - Tolentino vs. Carlos

The petitioner, Anacleto R. Tolentino, was charged with malversation of public funds while serving as postmaster of the Baguio post office and as an official of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
The respondents comprised Jose R. Carlos, Judge of First Instance of Benguet, Mountain Province, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

On February 11, 1938, the fiscal of the City of Baguio filed an information against the petitioner for allegedly misappropriating public funds and postage stamps totaling P27,061.90.
On February 12, 1938, the same fiscal initiated a civil case (No. 643) before the Court of First Instance of Benguet, Mountain Province, aimed at recovering the misappropriated funds and stamps.

The complaint alleged that, by virtue of his position as postmaster, the petitioner had custody of public funds and postage stamps which were legally required to be accounted for and returned to the Commonwealth.
It further asserted that the petitioner, having misappropriated the funds for his own benefit, had failed to return them on demand, thereby causing financial harm to the government.
The complaint included a verified statement by Conrado Alcaraz, auditor of the City of Baguio, affirming the truth of the allegations.

Based on the verified complaint, the respondent judge issued a writ of attachment for all the petitioner’s property to secure the recovery of the alleged misappropriated funds.
The attachment was effected despite a motion from the petitioner seeking its dissolution, which was ultimately denied.

The petitioner argued that the affidavit supporting the attachment was insufficient and fatally defective.
He contended that the Commonwealth failed to post a bond as required by Section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The petitioner maintained that the civil case did not state a valid cause of action because it essentially duplicated the criminal proceeding (ex delicto) for malversation of public funds.
It was also argued that the judge acted without proper jurisdiction or abused his discretion in issuing the writ of attachment.

The court held that the verified statement, attached to the complaint, was sufficient to support the writ of attachment.
The Commonwealth, acting as a state entity, was exempted from the posting of a bond under Section 427 due to its inherent solvency.
Though the civil complaint paralleled the criminal information, the allegations also gave rise to an obligation ex lege under the Revised Administrative Code, thereby establishing an independent cause of action.

Justice Concepcion concurred with the majority regarding the decision on the writ but dissented on the characterization of the civil action.
He emphasized that although the civil action was based on the same facts as that of the criminal case, filing the complaint was legal and necessary to secure the recovery of public funds.
Concepcion cited Article 114 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure, clarifying that while the filing of a civil action concurrent with a criminal proceeding might be problematic, it did not inherently preclude the filing or subsequent execution of such an action.

Whether the verified statement attached to the complaint is sufficient to support the issuance of a writ of attachment.

Does the verified statement adequately cover all elements necessary under Sections 412, 424, and 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Whether the Commonwealth of the Philippines could be exempted from posting a bond in connection with the attachment given its status as a state entity.

Is the exemption justified on the basis of state solvency despite the requirements of Section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Whether the civil action seeking recovery of misappropriated funds is maintainable despite the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Does the criminal proceeding (ex delicto) bar the civil suit, or does the civil complaint invoke a separate, independent cause of action founded on statutory accountability under the Revised Administrative Code?
How should Article 114 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure be interpreted in this context?

Whether the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and did not abuse his discretion in issuing the writ of attachment.