G.R. No. 148072 - Magistrado vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148072)

Factual Background

Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Loss averring that he lost the Owner’s Duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-173163 and filed a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate in the RTC. Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury, alleging that the affidavit and supporting petition were false because the subject title had been mortgaged to her as collateral for a loan and surrendered by petitioner. The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended filing an information for perjury, and the case was instituted as Criminal Case No. 90721 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 43, Quezon City.

Proceedings Before the Metropolitan Trial Court

Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on 30 June 1999 on the ground of a prejudicial question arising from two civil actions: Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 (cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title, and damages) before RTC-Branch 77; and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 (collection of a sum of money) before RTC-Branch 84. The MeTC, Branch 43, denied the motion in an Order dated 14 July 1999, holding that resolution of the civil actions was not determinative of petitioner’s guilt or innocence in the perjury prosecution. A reconsideration motion was filed on 17 August 1999 and denied on 19 October 1999.

Petition for Certiorari before RTC, Branch 83

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before RTC-Branch 83, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the MeTC from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 90721 and asserting grave abuse of discretion by MeTC Judge Billy J. Apalit in denying the suspension. RTC-Branch 83 dismissed the petition on 14 March 2000 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 21 December 2000. RTC-Branch 83 reasoned that the civil cases and the criminal case involved different issues and that the perjury charge could be decided independently of the civil actions.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Resolution

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on 5 March 2001 on procedural grounds, holding that the appropriate remedy from RTC-Branch 83’s dismissal was an ordinary appeal under Section 10, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as construed by that court), and not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 3 May 2001.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner sought review under Rule 45, raising two principal issues: whether the RTC-Branch 83 orders dismissing his Rule 65 petition and denying reconsideration could be reviewed only by appeal under Section 10, Rule 44; and whether RTC-Branch 83 committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question pursuant to Rule 111, Sections 6 and 7 and prevailing jurisprudence.

Procedural Holding of the Supreme Court

The Court held that the correct remedy from RTC-Branch 83’s dismissal was an ordinary appeal and not certiorari. Citing Rule 41, Section 2, the Court reasoned that RTC-Branch 83’s Order dismissed the petition finally, leaving nothing further for the trial court to do; thus the order was appealable. The Court reiterated the established doctrine that certiorari under Rule 65 lies only where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal. The Court applied controlling authorities, including Fajardo v. Bautista, to emphasize that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and that failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the trial court’s decision final and bars resort to certiorari. Because petitioner received the RTC order denying reconsideration on 21 December 2000 and failed to appeal within the prescribed period (his CA petition was filed on 19 February 2001), the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.

Merits Holding on the Prejudicial Question

The Court further addressed the substantive question whether the civil actions presented a prejudicial question that should have suspended Criminal Case No. 90721. The Court reviewed Rule 111, Sections 6 and 7, and the requisites for a prejudicial question: (1) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; (2) resolution of the civil issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed; and (3) jurisdiction to decide the question resides in another trib

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 148072)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Francisco Magestrado was the petitioner who faced a criminal information for perjury docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 43, Quezon City.
People of the Philippines and Elena M. Librojo were the respondents in the criminal prosecution and related civil actions.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83, Quezon City, a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
The MeTC denied the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings and denied reconsideration, the RTC, Branch 83 dismissed the Rule 65 petition and denied reconsideration, and the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and denied reconsideration prior to Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA resolutions and directed the MeTC, Branch 43 to proceed to trial and to expedite proceedings, with costs against petitioner.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that petitioner executed an Affidavit of Loss averring the loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163 and used the affidavit to support a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the title.
The information alleged that petitioner knew the affidavit was false because the title had been mortgaged to Elena M. Librojo as collateral for a loan of P758,134.42 and was surrendered to her by virtue of that loan.
Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 was a complaint filed by petitioner for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title, and damages alleging that private respondent withheld the title and that a mortgage was falsified.
Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 was a complaint filed by private respondent for collection of a sum of money alleging that petitioner obtained the loan and executed the mortgage as collateral for P758,134.42.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of the criminal proceedings based on a claimed prejudicial question arising from the two pending civil cases, which MeTC, Branch 43 denied on 14 July 1999 and denied reconsideration on 19 October 1999.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before RTC, Branch 83, which dismissed the petition on 14 March 2000 and denied reconsideration on 21 December 2000.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 63293) on 19 February 2001, which the CA dismissed on 5 March 2001 for being the wrong remedy and denied reconsideration on 3 May 2001.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, which resulted in the present decision.

Issues Presented

Whether the orders of RTC, Branch 83 dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari and denying reconsideration were reviewable by the Court of Appeals only by ordinary appeal and not by certiorari.
Whether RTC, Branch 83 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Rule 65 petition and denying reconsideration for petitioner’s claim of a prejudicial question.

Applicable Law

Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the special civil action for certiorari and applies only when no appeal nor other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.
Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rul