Maximo v. Villapando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr. (Villapando), as assignee of a condominium unit and parking slot, filed a complaint against John Labsky P. Maximo and Robert M. Panganiban (Maximo and Panganiban), directors of the developer ASB Realty Corporation, for alleged violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957. These sections pertain to the registration of contracts to sell, time of completion of the project, and issuance of title. Villapando claimed ASB failed to comply with these provisions regarding his unit. Procedural History: Villapando's complaint was dismissed by the Makati City Prosecutor's Office due to ASB's good faith in initiating rehabilitation proceedings. Subsequently, Maximo and Panganiban filed counter-complaints against Villapando for perjury and unjust vexation, alleging he falsely claimed they were officers and directors of ASB at the time of the sale, when they were minors. A perjury charge was filed against Villapando before the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC). Villapando filed motions to quash the information, arguing it was filed without proper authority and that the facts did not constitute an offense. The METC denied these motions. Villapando then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the METC's denial. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the criminal case without prejudice to the filing of a new information by an authorized officer. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Maximo and Panganiban filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA's decision. They argued the CA erred in taking cognizance of Villapando's petition for certiorari, that it was the wrong remedy, that the People of the Philippines was not impleaded, and that Villapando committed forum shopping. They also contended the CA erred in holding that the information was not properly filed despite certifications of authority. Villapando also filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing the CA should have resolved whether violations of PD 957 are continuing offenses, which he claimed would negate the perjury charge. The Supreme Court consolidated both petitions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of Villapando's petition for certiorari. Whether Villapando committed forum shopping. Whether the Information was properly filed without the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor. Whether the alleged violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of P.D. No. 957 constitute continuing offenses, and whether the facts charged in the Information constitute the offense of perjury.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition of Maximo and Panganiban (G.R. No. 214925) and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also denied the petition of Villapando (G.R. No. 214965), upholding the CA's dismissal of the criminal case without prejudice to the filing of a new Information by an authorized officer.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari and the RTC's grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that while generally, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and not appealable, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an exception when the lower court commits grave abuse of discretion. The METC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Villapando's motion to quash because the issue of authority to file the information goes into the very jurisdiction of the court. The RTC, in affirming the METC's denial, also committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that Villapando's liberty was in jeopardy, justifying a resort to certiorari to avoid further injury and a circuitous route of trial and appeal. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court ruled that Villapando did not commit forum shopping. The filing of a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a petition for certiorari with the CA does not constitute forum shopping because the DOJ's findings are merely advisory and not binding on the courts. The court retains its independent power to determine the merits of the case. Therefore, the CA correctly held that Villapando did not engage in forum shopping. On the validity of the Information and the lack of prior written authority: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Amended Information was defective for having been filed without the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor. The certification in the Information stating such authority was insufficient without proof of delegation or actual approval. The Court reiterated that the filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity that cannot be cured. Thus, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, and the Amended Information must be quashed. On the nature of violations of P.D. No. 957 and the offense of perjury: The Court found no need to resolve whether violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses. Since the Amended Information was defective and dismissed for lack of proper filing, any discussion on the nature of the offenses would be premature and would preempt the trial court's determination should a new Information be filed. The Court agreed with the OSG that unless a new information is filed, there is no actual case to speak of, and thus no need to resolve the substantive issue. The dismissal of the perjury charge was based on the procedural defect in the Information, not on the merits of the perjury charge itself.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent. The court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information.