Golangco v. Fung
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a criminal complaint for libel filed in 1995 by Jowett K. Golangco (petitioner) against Jone B. Fung (respondent). The petitioner alleged that the respondent maliciously imputed bribery against him in an office memorandum dated May 10, 1995, and distributed copies to various public officials, causing damage to the petitioner's reputation. After nearly six years, the prosecution had presented only two witnesses. Procedural History: On February 16, 2001, the prosecution requested a subpoena for Atty. Oscar Ramos to testify on February 20, 2001. The hearing was reset to May 23, 2001, due to Atty. Ramos's unavailability. On May 23, 2001, the prosecution failed to present Atty. Ramos as no subpoena had been issued for that date. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, Manila, issued an order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence and requiring a formal offer of evidence. The petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the RTC's order and arguing that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by not issuing the subpoena. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision dated September 12, 2002, which dismissed his petition for certiorari, and its resolution dated April 2, 2003, which denied his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that the RTC judge gravely abused his discretion in terminating the presentation of evidence and that his prior request for a subpoena should have been treated as a continuing one. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the petitioner failed to properly request the subpoena and that the RTC's order was a proper consequence of the prosecution's lack of diligence and the case's prolonged pendency. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted procedural missteps by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals, including the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party and to secure the consent of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled on the petition for certiorari of the petitioner, considering the procedural missteps regarding indispensable parties and consent from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence, given the prolonged nature of the case and the prosecution's lack of diligence. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's interlocutory order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence, considering the availability of appeal after final judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for review on certiorari. The Court found no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court pointed out a gross procedural misstep by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals for failing to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party and for not obtaining the consent of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Even on the merits, the Court found that the trial judge did not act capriciously, arbitrarily, or whimsically in issuing the order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence. The case had been pending since 1995, and the prosecution had only presented two witnesses despite numerous warnings from the trial court. The prosecution's failure to ensure the presence of its witnesses and its deflection of responsibility demonstrated a lack of diligence. The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not present in this case. On the RTC judge's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the trial judge did not act capriciously, arbitrarily, or whimsically in issuing the order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence. The case had been pending since 1995, and the prosecution had only presented two witnesses despite numerous warnings from the trial court. The prosecution's failure to ensure the presence of its witnesses and its deflection of responsibility demonstrated a lack of diligence. On the nature of the assailed order and the propriety of certiorari: The Court noted that the RTC's order terminating the prosecution's presentation of evidence was merely interlocutory. It is a settled rule that certiorari does not lie to review an interlocutory order, but only a final judgment or order that terminates the proceedings. The function of certiorari is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and relieving persons from arbitrary acts. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to proceed with the action until judgment and then appeal the interlocutory order along with the final judgment.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order of a trial court is generally not the proper remedy, especially when the order is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The proper remedy is to proceed with the trial and appeal the interlocutory order along with the final judgment.