People v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edwin M. Lim was charged with grave threats for allegedly uttering threatening words, specifically "Pus-on ko ulo mo!" and "Patyon ta ikaw," towards his brother, Ronald Geralino M. Lim. Edwin pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case proceeded through mediation and pre-trial, with several postponements. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) allowed the prosecution to submit judicial affidavits of its witnesses belatedly, on the same day as the pre-trial, despite the defense's opposition and the rule requiring submission at least five days prior. The MTCC denied Edwin's motion for reconsideration, imposing a fine on the prosecution. Edwin then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC granted the petition, setting aside the MTCC's orders and expunging the judicial affidavits from the records. The prosecution and Ronald appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners, Ronald Geralino M. Lim and the People of the Philippines, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over them due to improper service of summons and that a petition for certiorari was an improper remedy, as an appeal should have been pursued. They also contend that the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of judicial affidavits, asserting that the trial court judge has discretion in determining valid reasons for such delays.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over petitioners Ronald Geralino M. Lim and the People of the Philippines. Whether the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was the proper remedy to question the November 21, 2013 Order of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, and whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The June 6, 2014 Decision and August 27, 2014 Order of the Regional Trial Court in Special Civil Action No. 14-32157 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that summons need not be issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Instead, the court issues an order requiring the respondents to comment. Furthermore, even if service of summons was improper, petitioners are deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings through filing a Comment/Opposition. The Court also clarified that in cases assailing an act of a judge, the petitioner in the main action is joined as a private respondent, and it is their duty to defend the proceedings, not necessarily the Office of the Solicitor General unless directed by the court. On the propriety of certiorari and the grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that certiorari and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies. However, certiorari is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, especially when no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available. The Court found that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the clear mandate of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Rule explicitly requires submission of judicial affidavits not later than five days before pre-trial, with a waiver deemed upon failure to comply. While late submission may be allowed once for a valid reason, the prosecution's excuse of "for whatever reason" was deemed insufficient, especially considering the repeated postponements of the pre-trial, demonstrating a capricious exercise of judgment and a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to assail an order of a lower court that constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, even if an appeal may theoretically be available, especially when the error cannot be corrected by ordinary appeal. The belated submission of judicial affidavits without a valid reason, despite repeated postponements of pre-trial, constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.