G.R. No. 153284 - Turingan vs. Garfin

The petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed to nullify the orders dated March 13, 2002, and April 12, 2002, issued by Judge Zeida Aurora B. Garfin of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 19.
The orders involved the quashing of private respondent Muriel C. Apolinar’s motion to quash the Information and the denial of state prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration.

Criminal Case No. RTC 2001-0582 arose from an Information charging Apolinar with violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of Republic Act (RA) 8282, known as the Social Security Act of 1997.
Apolinar, a registered trimobile operator, was accused of failing to remit the premiums due for SSS and Employees’ Compensation (EC) for his workers covering the period from January 1997 to December 1998, as well as the nonpayment of a 3% monthly penalty for late remittance.
The Information alleged that despite lawful demands by letter, Apolinar wilfully and continuously neglected his remittance obligations, thereby causing damage to the SSS and to the public in general.

State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino, in his official capacity, signed the Information and the accompanying certification, which stated that:

A proper investigation had been conducted.
There were reasonable grounds to believe that the offense was committed.
The accused was probably guilty, and the filing of the Information had the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor.

Prior to arraignment, Apolinar moved to quash the Information on the basis that Tolentino lacked the appropriate authority to sign it.

On February 13, 2002, state prosecutor Tolentino opposed Apolinar’s motion to quash, asserting that his designation as special prosecutor for SSS cases (under Regional Order No. 97-024-A dated July 14, 1997) vested him with the authority to investigate, file the Information, and prosecute SSS-related cases.
Judge Garfin, in her order dated March 13, 2002, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Following a motion for reconsideration by Tolentino—which was ultimately denied on April 12, 2002—the petition was filed seeking relief from these orders.

A similar issue arose in People v. Garfin (G.R. No. 153176, March 29, 2004) where state prosecutor Tolentino faced a complaint in another SSS case involving Serafin Saballegue.
In that case, after Saballegue filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Information was filed without the written authority or approval of the city prosecutor, Judge Garfin granted the motion to dismiss and denied Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court, in that decision, held that the absence of a formal directive from the Secretary of Justice or a written approval from the provincial or city prosecutor rendered the filing of the Information by Tolentino void due to a jurisdictional defect.

Whether state prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino had the authority to file the Information charging Apolinar for violation of RA 8282.

The central question is if Tolentino’s designation under Regional Order No. 97-024-A and his role as special prosecutor for SSS cases sufficed to confer the necessary authority for filing the Information without a separate, written authorization from the Secretary of Justice or the local prosecutor’s office.
Whether the absence of such written authority constitutes a jurisdictional defect that warrants the dismissal of the case.