Po v. Department of Justice
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jasper T. Tan (Tan), a stockholder of Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc. (CHVI), filed a complaint against Antonio Ng Chiu (Chiu), its President, and Loreli Lim Po (Po), allegedly Chiu's accountant, for violation of Section 74(2) in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code. Tan alleged that pertinent information regarding CHVI's operations were withheld from him, and his repeated requests for financial statements and inspection of corporate books were denied. Procedural History: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu found probable cause to indict Chiu and Po. The Department of Justice (DOJ), after a review, initially reversed this finding but later affirmed it upon reconsideration. Chiu and Po each filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed Po's petition on technical grounds (improper proof of service) and denied Chiu's petition for lack of merit, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ. The Petition: Loreli Lim Po filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's dismissal of her petition. Antonio Ng Chiu also filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in denying his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Loreli Lim Po's petition on technical grounds related to proof of service. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Antonio Ng Chiu's petition for lack of merit, specifically regarding the finding of probable cause by the Department of Justice. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Department of Justice in its resolution finding probable cause.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petitions. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 05352 and its Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 05351.
Ratio Decidendi
On Loreli Lim Po's Petition: The Court found no compelling reason to grant Po's petition. Even if the dismissal on technical grounds regarding proof of service was considered an error, remanding the case would be circuitous. The crux of Po's petition was to review the DOJ's findings, which the CA had already done on the merits when resolving Chiu's petition. Therefore, there was no ground to review the same again. On Antonio Ng Chiu's Petition: The Court found Chiu's petition procedurally flawed. He filed under Rule 65 when he should have resorted to Rule 45. Even if considered under Rule 45, it was susceptible to dismissal for non-compliance with the reglementary period. Furthermore, the petition sought a re-evaluation of evidence to determine probable cause, which is generally not allowed under Rule 45. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the CA, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding. The Court also emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that courts generally do not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in its decision. On the Finding of Probable Cause: The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation is not a trial, and the prosecutor's role is to determine if probable cause exists, meaning facts and circumstances that engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. The Court found ample evidence on record to support the CA's decision, including the Joint Affidavit of accountants who stated that documents made available for inspection were limited and that they were not allowed to use a photocopying machine. The offense requires unjustified disallowance or refusal of a stockholder's request to examine or copy corporate books. The absence of ascribed ill motives on the part of the accountants lent credibility to their declarations. The Court stressed that a prosecutor is not bound to establish moral certainty of guilt for indictment, and the determination of probable cause is an executive function, free from judicial interference except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the dismissal of petitions challenging the finding of probable cause for violation of the Corporation Code regarding a stockholder's right to inspect corporate books, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in preliminary investigations and the procedural requirements for appeals.