Lao v. Co
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations of falsification of public documents. The petitioners and their sister, Susana Tan Villaviray, accused the respondents of falsely making it appear that they had executed deeds of assignment transferring their shares in Leecauco International Group to Moly Chiu, Inc. The petitioners and Villaviray denied executing these deeds and denied appearing before the notaries public named in the documents. 2. Procedural History: Initially, the criminal complaints filed by Villaviray and the petitioners were dismissed by the City Prosecutor for insufficiency of evidence, citing the lack of expert opinion on the alleged forgery of signatures. The petitioners appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which initially denied the appeal. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the DOJ granted the motion and directed a reinvestigation with expert analysis. Subsequently, the DOJ, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents, reversed its prior resolution, reinstated the dismissal of the complaints, and reinstated the initial dismissal of the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's dismissal of their petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition for two main reasons: (1) the petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the third DOJ resolution, and (2) the petition was not accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed DOJ resolutions, violating Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners argue that a motion for reconsideration of the third DOJ resolution would have been a prohibited second motion and that the CA erred in dismissing their petition on this ground. They also contend that the DOJ erred in requiring an expert's view to establish probable cause for falsification. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's dismissal, primarily on the ground of the violation of Rule 46 regarding the submission of proper copies of the assailed resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the third DOJ resolution. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for attaching only machine copies of the assailed DOJ resolutions. Whether the Department of Justice erred in holding that an expert's view was a condition sine qua non in establishing probable cause for falsification.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The August 31, 2004 and May 9, 2005 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85514 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the third DOJ resolution. Section 13 of DOJ Circular No. 70 provides that no second or further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. In this case, the issues presented by the petitioners had already been passed upon in previous DOJ resolutions. Filing another motion for reconsideration would have been a mere reiteration of the same issues and arguments, thus constituting a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Therefore, there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to the petitioners, and the CA should not have dismissed the petition on this ground. On the attachment of machine copies: Despite finding error in the CA's dismissal on the ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court sustained the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari on another ground. The CA correctly pointed out that petitioners failed to attach duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed first and third DOJ resolutions to their petition, submitting only machine copies. This is a clear violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which explicitly states that such failure is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The requirement for certified true copies or duplicate originals is mandatory to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the documents presented to the appellate court. On the necessity of expert opinion for probable cause: The Court clarified that the DOJ did not categorically state that an expert's view was a condition sine qua non for establishing probable cause for forgery. Instead, the prosecutor and the DOJ dismissed the complaint because the petitioners' evidence did not engender a well-founded belief that respondents were guilty of falsifying the deeds. The complaint-affidavit contained only bare allegations of forgery without any corroborating evidence. Therefore, the investigating prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice had no recourse but to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The decision to dismiss a complaint rests on the sound discretion of the prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, and their findings are generally not subject to review unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the third DOJ resolution, as such motion would have been a second motion for reconsideration and thus prohibited. However, the petition was still dismissed for failure to attach duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed resolutions, as required by Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the criminal complaint for falsification due to insufficiency of evidence, noting that bare allegations of forgery without corroborating evidence do not establish probable cause.