Title
Peralta vs. Court of 1st Instance of La Union, Branch I
Case
G.R. No. L-48011
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1988
A disbarment complaint led to libel charges, with the Secretary of Justice intervening to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court upheld judicial discretion, ruling that once filed, courts alone decide case disposition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48011)

Background

This case arises from a series of legal disputes initiated by private respondent Napoleon S. Arrieta, who filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner Pedro G. Peralta, alleging perjury and unworthiness in the legal profession. Arrieta’s actions included distributing copies of this complaint prior to any Supreme Court action on the matter, which subsequently led to Peralta filing charges for criminal libel against him.

Preliminary Investigation and Initial Proceedings

Following Peralta's libel complaint, a panel of three fiscals conducted a preliminary investigation over approximately nine months. On July 23, 1975, this panel found a prima facie case and recommended filing an information for libel against Arrieta. Despite a motion for reconsideration from Arrieta being denied, the case progressed to court.

Secretary of Justice Review

On October 6, 1975, Arrieta appealed to the Secretary of Justice, which resulted in the Provincial Fiscal being ordered to suspend proceedings pending the review. After a protracted analysis, the Secretary found merit in Arrieta's appeal and directed the Provincial Fiscal to dismiss the libel case, leading to a motion for dismissal being filed on February 18, 1977.

Court Dynamics and Injunctive Relief

In response to the impending dismissal, Peralta sought judicial relief through a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, aiming to annul the Secretary of Justice's order. A preliminary injunction was granted, prohibiting any dismissal of the case, which prompted the Provincial Fiscal to withdraw the earlier motion to dismiss.

Dismissal of the Libel Case

On October 13, 1977, despite ongoing legal maneuvering, the trial court dismissed the criminal libel case against Arrieta, corroborated by the admission that no prima facie case existed. Peralta's subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on February 25, 1978.

Legal Issue Presented

The core legal question presented in this petition was the extent of the Secretary of Justice's authority under Presidential Decree No. 911 in reviewing findings post-filing of a complaint or information in court. Peralta contended that, following the fiscal's determination of a prima facie case and the filing of the information, the court should retain exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and any review by the Secretary should not interfere.

Relevant Judicial Precedent

The court referenced its prior ruling in Crespo v. Hon. Mogul, affirming that once a complaint or information is filed, the discretion for disposition—whether to grant or deny motions reg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.