Case Digest (G.R. No. 171643)
Facts:
Filemon A. Verzano, Jr. v. Francis Victor D. Paro, Janet A. Florencio, Hon. Regional State Prosecutor, and Hon. City Prosecutor of Bacolod, G.R. No. 171643, August 08, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Filemon A. Verzano, Jr. was dismissed by his employer Wyeth Philippines, Inc. following an internal investigation that found he allegedly sold drug samples and engaged in unauthorized "channeling." Among those who filed the internal complaint and gave affidavits were respondents Francis Victor D. Paro and Janet A. Florencio, territory managers under petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner filed for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC; in Wyeth’s position paper opposing the labor complaint the affidavits of Paro and Florencio were attached.
Believing the affidavits contained false material statements, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for perjury, false testimony and incriminatory machination against Paro and Florencio with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod. The City Prosecutor issued subpoenas that were returned unserved; finding no probable cause, the City Prosecutor dismissed petitioner’s criminal complaint in a Resolution dated March 3, 2004. After petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, he appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor.
On July 30, 2004 the Regional State Prosecutor reversed the City Prosecutor’s dismissal and directed the filing of Informations for perjury against Paro and Florencio, apparently relying on respondents’ failure to file counter‑affidavits and citing provisions of Rule 112, Section 3 (paras. (b) and (d)) of the Revised Rules. The Regional State Prosecutor denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on August 25, 2004. Informations were subsequently filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City (Criminal Cases Nos. 049‑8479 and 049‑8480), and warrants of arrest issued; both respondents posted bail.
Respondents sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), and obtained a temporary restraining order from the CA enjoining the prosecution from acting on the Regional State Prosecutor’s order. The MTCC suspended proceedings accordingly. On July 28, 2005, the CA granted respondents’ petition, holding that the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing the City Prosecutor solely because no counter‑affidavits had been filed; the CA set aside the Regional State Prosecutor’s July 30 and August 25, 2004 Resolutions. The CA denied reconsideration on February 7, 2006.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, arguing that the filing of the Info...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the CA petition rendered moot and academic by the filing of the Informations in the MTCC?
- Did the Regional State Prosecutor commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Prosecutor and directing the filing of Informations against respondents?
- Was certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals an improper remedy, given admi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)