Tan v. Nitafan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the civil aspect of a slaying that occurred nearly twenty years prior to the filing of the petition. Florentino Lim, a prominent businessman, was shot and killed in his office on August 25, 1973. Following an investigation, several individuals, including the Tan brothers (Luis, William, Joaquin, Vicente, Alfonso, and Eusebio) and Go E Kuan, were charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm before Military Commission No. 1. The military court convicted Luis Tan and five co-accused of murder, while the gunman was found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. The other Tan brothers were acquitted. Procedural History: On February 11, 1983, the private respondents, Rosita B. Lim and her minor children, initiated a civil action for damages against all those charged in the criminal case. This action was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, presided over by respondent Judge David G. Nitafan. The petitioners, the Tan brothers, initially filed a motion to dismiss, arguing improper venue and that the cause of action was barred by the acquittal of some of their co-accused. This motion was denied, and an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) was also unsuccessful. Subsequently, this Court, in G.R. No. 67029, affirmed the denial, ruling that an independent civil action was permissible and that the complaint stated a cause of action against the acquitted individuals. The petitioners then filed an answer, omitting prescription as a defense. Later, a co-defendant, Mariano Velez, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss based on prescription, which the petitioners adopted. This motion was denied by the trial court, and a subsequent petition for certiorari by Velez (G.R. No. 69418) was dismissed by this Court. Despite these rulings, the petitioners filed another motion to dismiss on January 28, 1986, reiterating prescription and lack of cause of action, which was again denied by the respondent Judge on March 20, 1986. The Petition: The petitioners are before this Court via a Petition for Certiorari, seeking to annul the March 20, 1986, order of the Regional Trial Court denying their motion to dismiss, and the subsequent order denying their motion for reconsideration. The sole ground raised is prescription. The petitioners argue that the civil action for damages has prescribed, contending that the prescriptive period is four years. They assert that this issue has not been definitively resolved with respect to them, despite prior rulings involving co-defendants. The private respondents maintain that the issue of prescription has already been settled by this Court in G.R. No. 69418, which affirmed the trial court's denial of a similar motion to dismiss, and that the cause of action is coterminous with the crime of murder, which has a longer prescriptive period. The petitioners also raise an issue regarding whether a civil action can proceed against them given their acquittal, an issue previously addressed by this Court in G.R. No. 67029.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss based on prescription, considering the prior ruling in G.R. No. 69418. Whether the civil action for damages had prescribed, and whether the petitioners were bound by the prior resolution in G.R. No. 69418 despite not being nominal parties in that specific petition.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, or whichever branch of the same court this case may now be assigned, is directed to proceed with the least disposition of Civil Case No. 83-15633 with the least possible delay. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and prescription: The Court held that a motion to dismiss based on prescription may only be granted if the complaint shows on its face that the action had already prescribed at the time it was filed. In this case, the applicable prescriptive period was debatable. Furthermore, the issue of prescription had already been passed upon adversely by this Court in G.R. No. 69418, which affirmed the trial court's ruling that prescription had not yet set in. The minute resolution in G.R. No. 69418, by dismissing the petition for lack of merit, became the 'law of the case' on the issue of prescription, precluding its relitigation. Therefore, respondent Judge's denial of the motion to dismiss was not a grave abuse of discretion, as it correctly recognized that the issue of prescription was already settled by superior courts. A contrary ruling by the respondent Judge would have subjected him to certiorari for gross disobedience to settled pronouncements of the Supreme Court. On the issue of the civil action's prescription and the petitioners' binding to G.R. No. 69418: Petitioners, by adopting the grounds of their co-defendant Velez in his motion to dismiss, were bound by the resolution in G.R. No. 69418, even though they were not nominal parties in that specific petition. The Court reiterated that courts frown upon litigants reiterating identical motions in the hope of a change of opinion. The denial of Velez' motion to dismiss, which relied heavily on prescription, must also apply to petitioners who joined cause with Velez on the same issue.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss based on prescription may only be granted if the complaint shows on its face that the action had already prescribed. If the applicable prescriptive period is debatable, or has already been settled by prior rulings of the appellate court, the motion should be denied. Prior minute resolutions of the Supreme Court, when dismissing a petition for lack of merit, become the 'law of the case' on the issues passed upon.