Case Summary (G.R. No. 214163)
Petitioner, Respondent, Key Dates, Applicable Law
Petitioner: Ronald Geralino M. Lim and the People of the Philippines
Respondent: Edwin M. Lim
Key Dates: Complaint (Nov. 2012); pre-trial resets on Aug. 12, Sep. 5, Oct. 17, and Nov. 21 2013; MTC orders (Nov. 21 and Dec. 20 2013); RTC certiorari decision (June 6 2014); SC review (2019)
Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution; Rules of Court, Rule 65 (Special Civil Actions – Certiorari); A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule)
Facts and Municipal Trial Court Orders
At the November 21, 2013 pre-trial, the prosecution sought and obtained leave to file judicial affidavits later that day—despite the Judicial Affidavit Rule’s five-day requirement. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities denied Edwin’s motion for reconsideration on December 20 2013, fined the prosecution ₱1,000 for late filing, but refused to expunge the affidavits.
Regional Trial Court’s Certiorari Ruling
Edwin petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for certiorari, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the MTC in admitting belated affidavits. The RTC granted relief on June 6 2014, setting aside the MTC orders and expunging the affidavits. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on August 27 2014.
Issue 1 – Jurisdiction under Rule 65
Petitioners claimed the RTC lacked jurisdiction because summons were not served personally on them or on the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court held that Rule 65 requires only an order to comment, not a summons; moreover, petitioners voluntarily appeared and opposed the petition, thus submitting to jurisdiction.
Issue 2 – Proper Remedy: Appeal versus Certiorari
Petitioners contended that appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy. The Court reaffirmed that interlocutory orders—such as extensions of time or admission of affidavits—are not appealable and may be challenged only by certiorari when grave abuse of discretion is alleged and no adequate remedy of appeal exists.
Issue 3 – Grave Abuse of Discretion and the Judicial Affidavit Rule
Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the prosecution must submit ju
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 214163)
Facts of the Case
- On November 11, 2012, Edwin M. Lim allegedly threatened to kill his brother Ronald (“Pus-on ko ulo mo!” and “Patyon ta ikaw”).
- Ronald filed a complaint for grave threats with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Iloilo City.
- The City Prosecutor filed an Information in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Iloilo City.
- Edwin pleaded not guilty on arraignment and the case was referred to mediation, which failed.
- Pre-trial was set on August 12, 2013, but reset to September 5, October 17, and finally November 21, 2013, due to absences and the prosecution’s need to submit judicial affidavits.
- At the November 21 pre-trial, the prosecution asked leave to file belated judicial affidavits “for whatever reason,” which MTCC granted until 5:00 p.m. that day.
- Edwin moved for reconsideration, arguing waiver under the Judicial Affidavit Rule; MTCC denied the motion on December 20, 2013, but fined the prosecution P1,000 for late filing.
Procedural History
- January 29, 2014: Edwin filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Rule 65) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, Iloilo City.
- June 6, 2014: RTC rendered judgment setting aside MTCC’s November 21 and December 20 orders and expunging the judicial affidavits.
- August 27, 2014: RTC denied the prosecution’s motion