Case Summary (G.R. No. 178607)
RTC Proceedings and Writs of Arrest
After initial filing, the City Prosecutor moved to withdraw the information. Jimenez and two respondents opposed, and the RTC (Branch 212) denied withdrawal and ordered arrest warrants. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and deferral of enforcement were denied. Judge Capco-Umali later inhibited; the case was re-raffled to Judge Sorongon (Branch 214).
RTC Dismissal and Denial of Reconsideration
Respondent Alamil moved for judicial determination of probable cause, treated as a motion to dismiss. The RTC (March 8, 2006) found no evidence of false representation and granted the motion, dismissing the case and quashing warrants. Jimenez’s motion for reconsideration was denied (May 10, 2006), and his notice of appeal was expunged (August 7, 2006) for lack of Solicitor General’s conformity.
Rule 65 Petition Before the CA
Jimenez filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the RTC’s March 8, May 10, and August 7 orders. The CA dismissed it outright (November 23, 2006), holding that only the OSG has legal personality to represent the People in criminal appeals, and that Jimenez was not the real party in interest but a business competitor. Reconsideration was denied (June 28, 2007).
Issue on Appeal
Whether the CA erred in dismissing Jimenez’s Rule 65 petition for lack of legal personality to represent the People of the Philippines in appellate criminal proceedings.
Legal Personality and Standing
Under Rule 3, Section 2, civil actions must be prosecuted by the real party in interest. Procedural law (Rule 110, Section 5) mandates that all criminal actions be prosecuted under a public prosecutor’s direction. Section 35(1) of the 1987 Administrative Code vests exclusive representation of the People in the OSG for criminal appeals. Jimenez, as private complainant, lacks authority to pursue or appeal a criminal case in the CA, since he did not seek to protect a purely pecuniary interest but to reinstate prosecution against the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178607)
Parties
- Petitioner
• Dante La. Jimenez, in his capacity as President and Representative of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation - Respondents
• Hon. Edwin Sorongon, Presiding Judge, Branch 214, Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City
• Socrates Antzoulatos, Carmen Alamil, Marceli Gaza, Markos Avgoustis—incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc.
Factual Antecedents
- August 19, 2003: Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong for syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6(c) and 7 of R.A. No. 8042.
- Allegation: Respondents misrepresented their stockholdings in TMSI’s articles of incorporation to secure a POEA recruitment license.
- October 9, 2003: Respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed a joint counter-affidavit; Alamil and Avgoustis did not.
- May 4, 2004: 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause and recommended filing an information.
- City Prosecutor filed Criminal Case No. MC04-8514 in RTC Branch 212 (Judge Capco-Umali).
- December 14, 2004: City Prosecutor moved to withdraw the information; petitioner and some respondents opposed.
- August 1, 2005: RTC Branch 212 denied withdrawal motion, found probable cause, and issued warrants of arrest.
- September 2, 2005: RTC denied Antzoulatos and Gaza’s omnibus motion for reconsideration and deferred enforcement.
- September 26–30, 2005: Alamil’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause was filed and denied as moot; petitioner opposed, citing fugitive status.
- October 10, 2005–January 4, 2006: Alamil moved for reconsideration and judge’s inhibition; Judge Capco-Umali voluntarily inhibited herself; case re-raffled to Branch 214 (Judge Sorongon).
RTC Rulings (Branch 214)
- March 8, 2006: RTC granted Alamil’s motion for reconsideration (treated as motion to dismiss), found no evidence of false representation, dismissed the criminal case, and set aside wa