Case Summary (G.R. No. 172652)
Factual Background
Tan Tiong Bio, the respondent, fully paid the installment for a 683-square-meter lot in the Manila Southwoods Residential Estates. Despite his full payment, Fil-Estate Golf & Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate) failed to deliver property title and refund the purchase price after repeated demands. Eventually, the respondent discovered that the lot purportedly sold to him did not exist, prompting him to file a complaint for Estafa against Fil-Estate officials, including Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc, the petitioner.
Counter-Affidavit and Allegations
In her Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Odchigue-Bondoc contended she had no involvement in the alleged transactions and asserted that her handwritten approval for the lot transfer was not genuine. The respondent subsequently filed a complaint for Perjury against her, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence by the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Department of Justice Resolution
After the dismissal, the respondent sought a review from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which was dismissed motu proprio for not demonstrating reversible error. The DOJ indicated this under Section 12(c) of the NPS Rule on Appeal. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was similarly rejected.
Court of Appeals Decision
The respondent escalated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the respondent, characterizing the DOJ’s action as a grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court determined that the DOJ's resolution failed to articulate the factual basis for its dismissal clearly, violating the requirements of the 1987 Constitution.
Petition for Review on Certiorari
Atty. Odchigue-Bondoc appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the constitutional requirement to express the facts underpinning a decision applies solely to courts and does not extend to executive departments like the DOJ. She contended that the term "outright" in the DOJ’s resolution indicated a complete dismissal, permissible under the rules governing the DOJ.
Response from the Respondent
The respondent countered that the constitutional provisions apply beyond the judiciary, extending to quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, and argued that the DOJ's dismissal under Section 12 should have included a rationale delineating why no reversible error was found.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Matters of Judicial Authority
The Supreme Court examined the nature of preliminary investigations, distinguishing them from quasi-judicial proceedings to affirm that the prosecutor's functions are primarily inquisitorial. The Court noted that the Secretary of Justice's review functions do not constitute quasi-judicial authority and reiterated that Section 14 of the Constitution does not extend to resolutions by the DOJ Secretary.
Clarificatio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172652)
Case Background
- Respondent Tan Tiong Bio fully paid for a 683-square-meter lot within Manila Southwoods Residential Estates, developed by Fil-Estate Golf & Development, Inc.
- Despite repeated demands, Fil-Estate failed to deliver the title for the lot and did not refund the purchase price, leading to the respondent discovering that the lot was non-existent.
- This prompted the respondent to file a complaint for Estafa against Fil-Estate officials, including Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc (petitioner) and other employees.
Petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit
- In her Counter-Affidavit, the petitioner claimed:
- She had no involvement in the transactions alleged in the complaint.
- As Corporate Secretary, she was not engaged in the management or daily operations of Fil-Estate.
- The handwritten approval referenced in the complaint was not her signature, and she had no direct or indirect dealings with the respondent or Mrs. Ona.
Legal Proceedings Initiated by Respondent
- Based on the allegations in the Counter-Affidavit, the respondent filed a complaint for Perjury against the petitioner, which was assigned I.S. No. PSG 03-07-11855 before the Pasig City Prosecutor's Office.
- The Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint on June 17, 2004, due to insufficient evidence.
Department of Justice Review
- The respondent filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), wh