G.R. No. L-51354 - Asutilla vs. Philippine National Bank

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51354)

Factual Background

On March 1, 1971 a Toyota jeep belonging to PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and a Volkswagen Kombi registered in the name of Nazareno and/or Bohol Poly Clinic collided in Tubigon, Bohol. The jeep’s regular driver was Rene ARCAYA, but the vehicle was actually being driven by Emmanuel CEBALLOS, both employees of PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. The Kombi was driven by WILFREDO ASUTILLA. The Petition alleged that the jeep caused the accident and that there had been overtures toward an amicable settlement between the Kombi owners and the bank. The Petition further alleged that the subsequent filing of a criminal complaint against WILFREDO ASUTILLA was baseless, malicious, and intended to oppress and coerce the petitioner and his employer into agreeing to an amicable settlement.

Criminal Complaints and Initial Proceedings

On April 20, 1971 VIRGILIO DIZON, then Acting Chief of Police of Tubigon, filed a Complaint in the Municipal Court of Tubigon charging WILFREDO ASUTILLA with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1396. On April 27, 1971 LEOPOLDO R. BAGOLOR filed a Complaint against ARCAYA and CEBALLOS for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property and Physical Injuries, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1397. The record reflected that the Kombi owners had at some point contemplated an amicable settlement and that Criminal Case No. 1397 proceeded in its ordinary course.

Petition for Prohibition and Trial Court Action

On May 15, 1971 WILFREDO ASUTILLA filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in the trial Court to restrain the Municipal Court of Tubigon from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 1396. The petition named PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VIRGILIO DIZON, LEOPOLDO R. BAGOLOR, and the Municipal Judge of Tubigon as respondents. On the same day the trial Court issued a Restraining Order and set a hearing for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction for May 29, 1971. Respondents filed answers traversing the petition and contended that petitioner’s remedy, if convicted, was appeal and not an extraordinary writ. Respondents also alleged that the petition was a prelude to countercharges.

Trial Court’s Writ and Final Judgment

The trial Court issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction on July 27, 1971 enjoining the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 1396. Reconsideration was denied. A hearing on the merits was set for September 24, 1971 but the case was not called that day. On September 3, 1971 WILFREDO ASUTILLA filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On September 25, 1971 the trial Court rendered a Decision upholding the Petition, directing the Municipal Court to dismiss Criminal Case No. 1396, and declaring permanent the writ. The Decision effectively granted the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

Respondents appealed to the then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 53186-R and presented two assignments of error. First, the lower Court allegedly erred in holding that the answers of the respondents failed to tender an issue or otherwise admit the material allegations of the petition. Second, the lower Court allegedly erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings without a hearing.

Legal Issue Presented

The pivotal legal question certified to the Court of Appeals was whether the trial Court acted properly in permanently enjoining the criminal prosecution by granting judgment on the pleadings and issuing a permanent injunction. Underlying that was the broader issue whether an injunction is proper to restrain a criminal prosecution absent clear and convincing proof that the complaint was false, malicious, filed to oppress the accused, or that a public officer usurped authority or deprived the accused of constitutional rights.

The Parties’ Contentions on the Merits

WILFREDO ASUTILLA contended that the jeep was at fault, that Criminal Case No. 1396 was utterly baseless and motivated by malice, and that the complaint was filed solely to use the strong arm of the law to oppress, harass, and coerce the petitioner and his employer into settling. Respondents answered by traversing those allegations, maintained that the proper remedy for petitioner was appeal from a conviction, and asserted that the petition served as a prelude to possible countercharges by the petitioner.

Legal Doctrine Regarding Injunctions Against Criminal Prosecutions

The Court of Appeals observed the longstanding doctrine that an injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be promptly investigated and prosecuted. The Court recognized narrow exceptions where injunction may issue to prevent the oppressive or vindictive use of the criminal process or to afford protection to constitutional rights. The appellate court held that such extraordinary relief required clear and convincing evidence of a false, malicious, or unfounded complaint, of an officer’s usurpation of authority, or of deprivation of constitutional rights.

Reasoning of the Court of Appeals

The Court found nothing in the record to demonstrate that VIRGILIO DIZON usurped authority in filing Criminal Case No. 1396. The Court further found no convincing evi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-51354)

Parties and Procedural Posture

WILFREDO ASUTILLA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch III seeking to restrain the Municipal Court of Tubigon from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 1396.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (TAGBILARAN AND TUBIGON BRANCHES, BOHOL) and VIRGILIO DIZON, LEOPOLDO R. BAGOLOR, and the MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF TUBIGON, as respondents, opposed the petition and answered in the trial Court.
The trial Court issued a Restraining Order on May 15, 1971 and later a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on July 27, 1971 enjoining the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 1396.
The trial Court rendered judgment for petitioner on September 25, 1971 by granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining the municipal prosecution.
Respondents appealed to the then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 53186-R and the matter was certified to the Supreme Court for resolution.

Key Facts

A collision occurred on March 1, 1971 in Tubigon, Bohol between a Toyota jeep belonging to PNB and a Volkswagen Kombi registered in the name of the Nazareno and/or Bohol Poly Clinic.
The PNB jeep was registered to be driven by Rene Arcaya but at the time was actually driven by Emmanuel Ceballos, both PNB employees.
The Kombi was driven by WILFREDO ASUTILLA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE who was one of the injured or aggrieved parties in the accident.
The Kombi owners allegedly made overtures for an amicable settlement and later pursued or entertained civil recovery for approximately P200,000.00.
Separate criminal complaints arose from the same incident, resulting in Criminal Case No. 1396 against ASUTILLA and Criminal Case No. 1397 against ARCAYA and CEBALLOS.

Criminal Complaints

On April 20, 1971 VIRGILIO DIZON, then Acting Chief of Police of Tubigon, filed Criminal Case No. 1396 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property against ASUTILLA in the Municipal Court of Tubigon.
On April 27, 1971 LEOPOLDO R. BAGOLOR filed Criminal Case No. 1397 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property and Physical Injuries against ARCAYA and CEBALLOS in the same Municipal Court.
The petitions and answers in the trial Court framed the dispute as a contest between the parties over who was criminally responsible for the vehicular accident.

Trial Court Proceedings

WILFREDO ASUTILLA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE filed the petition on May 15, 1971 and the trial Court issued a Restraining Order the same day and set a hearing for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Respondents answered and contended that the proper remedy for petitioner was an appeal from a conviction rather than a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus.
The trial Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on July 27, 1971 and subsequently declared the wri