G.R. No. 207041 - People vs. Arrojado

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207041)

Motion to Dismiss for MCLE Non-Compliance

On June 16, 2009, respondent moved to dismiss the Information on the ground that the investigating prosecutor failed to indicate, in the Information, the number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance as required by Bar Matter No. 1922 (an En Banc resolution promulgated by the Court). Bar Matter No. 1922 required practicing lawyers to indicate the MCLE certificate number and date in all pleadings filed before courts or quasi‑judicial bodies and provided that failure to disclose the required information “would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.” The rule had taken effect January 1, 2009.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Contentions

The prosecution opposed dismissal, arguing: (1) the term “pleadings” in B.M. No. 1922 does not include criminal informations filed in court; (2) the omission of the MCLE details is a mere formal defect and should not prejudice the State’s interest in prosecuting alleged offenses; and (3) an administrative edict should not impose additional requirements that conflict with substantive or procedural law governing the sufficiency of an information.

Trial Court’s Ruling and Reconsideration

The RTC issued an order on July 2, 2009 dismissing the Information without prejudice for failure to indicate the MCLE certificate number and date as required by B.M. No. 1922. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on July 23, 2009.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Outcome

The prosecution sought relief from the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus to assail the RTC’s orders. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. A motion for reconsideration before the appellate court was also denied.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole assignment of error presented to the Supreme Court was that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the absence in the Information of the investigating prosecutor’s MCLE compliance number and date warranted dismissal. The prosecution maintained that an information is not encompassed by the term “pleadings” under B.M. No. 1922 and that the omission was a formal defect not warranting dismissal.

Applicable Rule and Definitions: B.M. No. 1922 and Rules of Court

B.M. No. 1922 expressly required counsel to indicate in all pleadings filed before courts or quasi‑judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance, and specified dismissal and expunction as the sanction for failure to disclose. Under the Rules of Court, pleadings are written statements of claims and defenses (Section 1, Rule 6), and an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court (Section 4, Rule 110). The Court treated these definitions as foundational to determining whether an information falls within B.M. No. 1922’s ambit.

Analysis: Whether an Information Is a “Pleading”

The Supreme Court concluded that an information is, for all intents and purposes, an initiatory pleading. The information performs the same basic function as a civil complaint—setting forth the cause of action (in criminal cases, the State’s accusation against an accused) and is filed in court for appropriate judgment. The decision cited analogous authority and procedural rules (including the classification of informations as pleadings in certain foreign authorities and the U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) to support that an information squarely falls within the ambit of “pleadings” as used in B.M. No. 1922.

Analysis: Effect of Omission and Mandatory Nature of Sanction

Because the information is a pleading, the categorical provision of B.M. No. 1922—stating that failure to disclose the MCLE certificate number and date “would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records”—was applicable. The Court held that the trial court’s dismissal conformed to a clear and categorical rule issued by the Court itself; consequently the dismissal did not constitute a capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion or grave abuse of discretion that would justify certiorari relief. The requisite standard for certiorari—grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction—was not satisfied because the RTC acted pursuant to an explicit administrative rule.

On Liberal Construction, Good Faith, and Procedural Alternatives

The prosecution invoked liberal construction of procedural rules when formal deficiencies are excusable. The Supreme Court found no reasonable or good‑faith attempt at compliance here: even the motion for reconsideration did not supply the required MCLE details. Given the categorical sanction in B.M. No. 1922 and the prosecution’s failu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207041)

Case Citation and Panel

Reported at 772 Phil. 440, Third Division, G.R. No. 207041, with Decision dated November 9, 2015.
Decision authored by Associate Justice Peralta, J., with concurring Justices Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals under review is dated September 8, 2011; the CA Resolution denying reconsideration is dated April 18, 2013.
Notices and clerical record entries indicate the Supreme Court rendered its Decision on November 9, 2015 and the original was received by the Office on December 28, 2015.

Procedural Antecedents and Docketing

An Information for murder was filed against respondent Jesus A. Arrojado by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, Capiz, dated March 23, 2009; the criminal case was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-75-09.
The criminal case was raffled to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Iloilo.
On June 16, 2009, respondent (the accused) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information alleging non-compliance by the investigating prosecutor with Bar Matter No. 1922.
The prosecution filed a Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
The RTC issued an Order dated July 2, 2009 dismissing the Information without prejudice; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated July 23, 2009.
The prosecution filed a special civil action for certiorari and/or mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s Orders in a Decision dated September 8, 2011; the CA denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 18, 2013.
The prosecution filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising a single Assignment of Error.

Assignment of Error Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole Assignment of Error stated by petitioner: "THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR TO INDICATE HER MCLE COMPLIANCE NUMBER AND DATE OF ISSUANCE THEREOF IN THE INFORMATION AGAINST RESPONDENT JESUS A. ARROJADO WARRANTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME." (As quoted in the source.)

Relief Sought by Parties

Petitioner (People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor) sought review to set aside and reverse the CA Decision and Resolution that affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the Information.
Respondent sought dismissal of the Information in the trial court on the ground of non-indication of MCLE Certificate of Compliance number and date by the investigating prosecutor, pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1922.

Petitioner's Contentions (as presented in the source)

The prosecution argued that the term "pleadings" in Bar Matter No. 1922 does not include criminal Informations filed in court.
The prosecution argued that the failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate number and date in the Information is a mere formal defect and should not warrant dismissal of an otherwise sufficient Information.
The prosecution contended that an administrative edict (B.M. No. 1922) cannot impose additional requirements for the sufficiency of a criminal information that would prevail over substantive or procedural law.

Respondent’s Argument and Trial Court Rulings

Respondent moved to dismiss the Information on June 16, 2009 for failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the Information the number and date of issuance of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, as required by B.M. No. 1922.
The RTC of Roxas City granted the Motion to Dismiss and issued an Order dated July 2, 2009 dismissing the Information without prejudice.
The RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated July 23, 2009.

Court of Appeals Disposition

The Court of Appeals denied the prosecution’s petition for certiorari and/or mandamus, thereby affirming the RTC’s July 2, 2009 and July 23, 2009 Orders dismissing the Information.
The CA also denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration in its April 18, 2013 Resolution.

Applicable Provision of Bar Matter No. 1922 (as quoted in the source)

The En Banc Resolution promulgating B.M. No. 1922 (dated June 3, 2008) “RESOLVED ... to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of t