Billedo v. Wagan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from the arrest of Alberto Mina, Nilo Jay Mina, and Ferdinand Caasi by police officers, including petitioners P/Chief Inspector Fernando Billedo, SPO3 Rodrigo Domingo, and PO3 Jorge Lopez, along with Ferdinand Cruz and Mariano Cruz. The complainants alleged their arrest for drinking in a public place was unlawful and instigated by Ferdinand and Mariano Cruz. Subsequently, the complainants filed a civil case for damages against the petitioners and criminal complaints for unlawful arrest and violation of R.A. No. 7438. The complainants were eventually convicted for violating a city ordinance regarding public drinking. 2. Procedural History: The criminal complaints filed against the petitioners were initially dismissed by the City Prosecution Office (CPO) and the Ombudsman for lack of merit and probable cause, though the Ombudsman recommended filing charges for Violation of R.A. No. 3019 against some officers and the Cruzes. After these recommendations, the CPO again recommended dismissal, which the Ombudsman approved, recalling the filed informations. Meanwhile, the civil case for damages proceeded. Ferdinand Cruz filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that jurisdiction belonged to the Sandiganbayan and that the civil action was barred under R.A. No. 8249. The RTC, through public respondent Judge Wilhelmina Wagan, denied this motion in several orders, finding that the case did not fall under R.A. No. 8249 and that the RTC had jurisdiction. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying Ferdinand Cruz's Motion to Dismiss. They contend that Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 mandates the simultaneous institution and joint determination of civil and criminal actions, and prohibits separate filing of the civil action, thus divesting the RTC of jurisdiction. The sole issue presented is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the civil case given the provisions of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 00-0089 given the mandatory simultaneous institution and joint determination of a civil liability with the criminal action and the express prohibition to file the said civil action separately from the criminal action as provided for under Section 4 of Republic Act 8249. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in issuing the assailed Orders. The Court held that Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 does not apply in this case because no criminal action has been filed before the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court, thus there is no appropriate court to which the civil case could be transferred or consolidated. The Court also reiterated the rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and not appealable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249: The Court affirmed the RTC's ruling that Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 was not applicable to the present case. The said provision contemplates two specific situations: first, where a criminal action is instituted and the civil liability must be simultaneously instituted with it; and second, where a civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case and is still pending upon the filing of the criminal action, requiring its transfer for consolidation. In this case, no criminal action was filed before the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court. Therefore, there was no basis to transfer or consolidate the civil case as mandated by the provision. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the criminal charges at the preliminary stage does not automatically render the civil case baseless, as the complainants can prove their cause of action by a preponderance of evidence. The Court also clarified that the civil case would only be considered abandoned if there was a pending criminal case and the civil case was not transferred for joint determination, which was not the scenario here. On the issue of the RTC's denial of the Motion to Dismiss: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. Such an order cannot be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari and may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. This rule is based on considerations of orderly procedure, aiming to prevent piecemeal appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the parties. The petitioners should have proceeded with the trial of the civil case pending before the RTC instead of filing the petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, even on pure questions of law. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The rule is founded on considerations of orderly procedure, to forestall useless appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they are promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be contested in a single appeal.