Case Summary (G.R. No. 161886)
Background of the Case
On September 11, 1966, the respondents arrested and detained Ocampo's son and nephews, along with a friend, for allegedly violating a curfew ordinance. Following their conviction in the city court, the minors appealed to the Court of First Instance, which acquitted them based on an exception stating that minors attending wholesome functions are exempt from the ordinance. Concurrently, Ocampo filed a complaint against the police officers for serious misconduct, which led to an administrative investigation. In June 1969, the respondents filed a civil complaint for damages against Ocampo, who later sought to dismiss or suspend the trial of the case.
Legal Proceedings and Motions
Ocampo filed a motion on May 22, 1970, seeking to dismiss or suspend the trial, arguing that a prejudicial question existed and that the case was premature. The trial court denied this motion on June 1, 1970, asserting that the defendants had already filed an answer, which the court interpreted as a waiver of the motion to dismiss. Ocampo subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Prejudicial Question Analysis
The court determined that the notion of a prejudicial question did not apply, explaining that Article 36 of the Civil Code requires such questions to be resolved before any related criminal prosecution. Here, the suit for damages was civil in nature and not criminal, rendering the concept of a prejudicial question inapplicable. The principal issue was whether Ocampo’s administrative case against the police officers was malicious, which would affect the underlying complaint for damages.
Prematurity of the Civil Suit
The court found that the civil suit was premature since it was filed while the administrative case was still pending before the Police Commission (POLCOM). The resolution of that case could significantly impact the damages suit; if the POLCOM ruled against the police officers, the civil suit would lack a valid cause of action for damages.
Argument of Res Judicata
Respondents contended that the case before POLCOM should be dismissed based on res judicata, arguing that the administrative order by the Mayor exonerating them constituted prior judgment. However, the court found this lacking, emphasizing that the Mayor lacked jurisdiction to hear administrative cases as the power had been transferred to the POLCOM. Thus, the prior administrative order could not serve as a valid defense against the civil suit.
Denial of the Motion to Dismiss
The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was based
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 161886)
Case Overview
- The case originates from a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Roberto Ocampo against Fernando Buenaventura and others, including Judge Mateo Canonoy.
- It seeks to annul the respondent Judge’s order dated June 1, 1970, which denied Ocampo's motion to dismiss and/or suspend the trial of Civil Case No. R-11320.
- The petitioner requests that a preliminary injunction issued on October 9, 1970, restraining the respondent Judge from proceeding with the civil case, be made permanent.
Factual Background
- On September 11, 1966, several minors, including Edgar Ocampo (the petitioner’s son), were arrested for allegedly violating a curfew ordinance in Cebu City.
- The ordinance penalizes loitering by minors, but an exception exists for minors attending wholesome and decent assemblies.
- The minors were convicted in the City Court but acquitted on appeal by Judge Tantuico, who ruled their attendance at a birthday party fell within the exception.
- Concurrently, Roberto Ocampo filed a complaint against the arresting police officers for serious misconduct, which resulted in an exoneration by the City Mayor on August 8, 1967.
- Following this, the officers filed a civil case for damages against Ocampo on June 4, 1969.
Legal Proceedings
- Ocampo filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the grounds of a prejudicial question and that the action was premature.
- The respondent Judge denied this motion on June 1, 1970, leading to the filing of this petition.
- Fernando Buena