G.R. No. 137010 - Ark Travel Express Inc. vs. Abrogar

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137010)

Factual Background

Ark Travel Express, Inc. filed criminal complaints for false testimony under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code against Violeta S. Baguio and Lorelei Ira after they testified in Civil Case No. 95-1542 (a collection, torts and damages action by Ark Travel against New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc.). The City Prosecutor of Makati found probable cause on November 20, 1996 and filed Informations in Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati as Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895. The Informations alleged that on February 19, 1996 the accused knowingly and maliciously testified that certain claims of Ark Travel were baseless or had been paid when, as alleged, those claims were valid, legal and unpaid.

Prosecutorial Proceedings

The accused filed a petition for review of the City Prosecutor’s finding with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito P. Zuno reversed the City Prosecutor’s finding in a resolution dated March 9, 1998. The prosecution then moved to withdraw the Informations in the MTC. Ark Travel filed an urgent petition for automatic review with the DOJ. Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III treated the urgent petition as a motion for reconsideration and reversed the March 9, 1998 resolution by letter dated May 27, 1998, directing the City Prosecutor to proceed with prosecution.

Metropolitan Trial Court Proceedings

On June 10, 1998 the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 67 denied the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information and set the cases for arraignment, citing the DOJ reversal. The accused moved for reconsideration, invoking the subsequent June 26, 1998 resolution by DOJ undersecretary acting for the Secretary which reinstated the March 9, 1998 finding of no probable cause and directed withdrawal. The MTC denied the motion for reconsideration on July 21, 1998, relying on the Crespo vs. Mogul principle that once an Information is filed the disposition rests within the court’s discretion and that the Informations sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense.

Petition to the Regional Trial Court

Violeta S. Baguio and Lorelei Ira sought certiorari relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, contending that the MTC acted with grave abuse by denying the withdrawal without independent evaluation of the DOJ resolutions. The RTC issued an order dated October 2, 1998 granting the petition, nullifying the MTC orders dated June 10 and July 21, 1998, and considering Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 as withdrawn. The RTC explained that trial courts must independently evaluate a DOJ resolution on probable cause and that the MTC had not made such an independent assessment.

RTC Denial of Reconsideration and Present Petition

The RTC denied Ark Travel’s motion for reconsideration on November 23, 1998. Ark Travel filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 alleging that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction, that it contravened the Crespo vs. Mogul doctrine by invalidating the MTC’s denial of withdrawal, and that criminal prosecutions cannot be enjoined. The petition raised the central question whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by nullifying the MTC orders and ordering dismissal of the criminal cases.

Parties’ Contentions

Ark Travel argued that the RTC’s ruling conflicted with Crespo vs. Mogul, asserting that once an Information is filed the trial court has discretion over dismissal and that certiorari was proper because the RTC’s action raised jurisdictional questions requiring immediate review. Private respondents contended that appeal, not certiorari, was the appropriate remedy and that Ark Travel’s petition was untimely under Rule 65; they further argued that the RTC’s orders became final and that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts. The respondents also maintained that the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause had not been sufficiently rebutted.

Procedural Questions: Timeliness and Proper Remedy

The Supreme Court first addressed procedural defects. The Court found that the petition to the Supreme Court, though filed beyond the then-prevailing reglementary computation, was rendered timely by the retroactive application of the amendment effected by A.M. No. 00-2-03, which modified Section 4, Rule 65 to count the sixty-day period from notice of denial of reconsideration. The Court also held that certiorari was the proper remedy because the issue concerned trial court jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. The Court further exercised its discretion to set aside the principle of hierarchy of courts in the interest of speedy justice given the protracted pendency of the matters since 1996.

Merits: Duty of Trial Court to Independently Assess Probable Cause

The Court examined whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information without independently assessing the DOJ resolutions. The Court reaffirmed that when a motion to withdraw an Information is grounded on a DOJ resolution finding lack of probable cause, the trial court must independently evaluate the existence of probable cause and must embody that evaluation in its order. The Supreme Court found that the MTC did not perform such an independent evaluation in either its June 10, 1998 or July 21, 1998 orders, and therefore committed grave abuse of discretion.

RTC’s Excess of Jurisdiction

The Court concluded that the RTC, while correct to find grave abuse by the MTC, acted in excess of jurisdiction by treating the criminal cases as withdrawn and effecting their dismissal. The Court explained that the RTC’s role in the certiorari proceeding was to determine whether the MTC committed grave abuse and, if so, to nullify the MTC orders and remand for proper action. The RTC should have nullified the MTC orders and remanded for independent determination by the MTC rather than itself declaring the cases withdrawn without evaluating probable cause.

Prejudicial Question and Suspension of Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the merits on the record because the entire case record had been forwarded and in the interest of speedy justice. The Court analyzed the elements of False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182, Revised Penal Code and observed that falsity, knowledge of falsity, and malice were yet to be established. The Court found that the determination of the falsity of the witnesses’ testimony was intimately tied to the outcome of the pending Civil Case No. 95-1542, making the question prejudicial under Section 7, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that, because the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the criminal issue and its resolution will determine whether the criminal action may proceed, the criminal proceedings must be suspended pending final decision in the civil case pursuant to Section 6, Rule 111.

Final Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court nullified and set aside the RTC Orders dated October 2, 1998 and November 23, 1998 insofar as they considered Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 as withdrawn. The Court likewise nullified and set aside the MTC Orders dated June 10, 1998 and July 21, 1998 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137010)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ark Travel Express, Inc. filed criminal complaints for false testimony under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code against Violeta S. Baguio and Lorelei Ira and thereby instituted Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati, Branch 67.
The City Prosecutor of Makati found probable cause and filed Informations dated November 20, 1996, which led to arraignment orders by the MTC in 1998.
The private respondents secured a March 9, 1998 reversal of the City Prosecutor's finding from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which was subsequently reversed and again reinstated by further DOJ action in May and June 1998.
The MTC denied the prosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information on June 10, 1998, and denied the accused's reconsideration on July 21, 1998.
The private respondents filed a Rule 65 petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 150, which granted certiorari on October 2, 1998, set the Informations as withdrawn, and denied reconsideration on November 23, 1998.
Ark Travel filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court challenging the RTC's October 2, 1998 order and the RTC's denial of reconsideration.

Key Factual Allegations

Ark Travel alleged that the accused gave false testimony during the trial of Civil Case No. 95-1542 before RTC Branch 137 by testifying that New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. had paid its obligations when, according to Ark Travel, those claims were valid and unpaid.
The Informations charged that the testimony was given on or about February 19, 1996 and was material to the civil action to collect sums of money and damages.
The civil case between Ark Travel and New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI) remained pending at the time of the filing of the criminal complaints and through the subsequent proceedings.

Procedural Issues Raised

Ark Travel contended that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction by treating criminal cases pending before the MTC as withdrawn and that certiorari was the proper remedy to challenge that overreach.
The private respondents argued that appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy and that the petitions were untimely and barred by finality and the principle of hierarchy of courts.
The parties disputed whether the trial courts and the DOJ had properly determined probable cause and whether such determinations bound the courts.

Timeliness and Jurisdictional Considerations

The Supreme Court found the Rule 65 petition timely because A.M. No. 00-2-03 amended Section 4, Rule 65 to count the sixty-day period from notice of denial of reconsideration and procedural amendments were applied retroactively.
The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to hear the petition directly notwithstanding the principle of hierarchy of courts because the case presented compelling reasons and urgency given the long pendency since 1996.
The Court held that certiorari was the proper remedy because the petition questioned the jurisd