Tak v. Makasiar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tam Wing Tak, acting as a director of Concord-World Properties, Inc., filed a complaint against Vic Ang Siong for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), the Bouncing Checks Law. The complaint stemmed from a check issued by Vic Ang Siong for P83,550,000.00, which was dishonored upon presentation for encashment. Vic Ang Siong sought dismissal, arguing that petitioner lacked the authority to file the case on behalf of Concord and that an amicable settlement had been reached regarding the dishonored check. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed the complaint, citing petitioner's lack of authority and the existence of a settlement agreement. Petitioner's counsel obtained a copy of this resolution, and a motion for reconsideration was filed. This motion was denied, and petitioner appealed to the Chief State Prosecutor. The Chief State Prosecutor also dismissed the appeal, finding it was filed out of time. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to compel the Chief State Prosecutor to file the information. The trial court dismissed the mandamus petition, which led to the instant petition for review on certiorari before this Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the trial court's decision, arguing that the lower courts erred in sustaining the Chief State Prosecutor's dismissal. Specifically, petitioner contends that the service of the City Prosecutor's resolution was invalid as it was sent directly to him and not his counsel, contrary to established rules. He also argues that the grounds for dismissal were improper, asserting that any competent person can initiate a criminal case and that the settlement did not negate the B.P. Blg. 22 violation. The petition raises issues regarding the validity of service of resolutions in preliminary investigations and whether mandamus lies to compel the filing of an information.
Issue(s)
Whether there was valid service of the City Prosecutor's resolution upon the petitioner. Whether mandamus will lie to compel the City Prosecutor to file the necessary information in court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for mandamus, upholding the resolutions of the Chief State Prosecutor and the RTC.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Valid Service of Resolution: The Supreme Court held that there was valid service of the City Prosecutor's resolution upon the petitioner. The Court clarified that while the Rules of Court generally require service upon counsel when a party is represented, this rule applies to court proceedings. Preliminary investigations are functions of the Executive Department, not the Judiciary, and are governed by specific agency rules. In this case, Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223, which was applicable at the time, allowed service to be made upon either the party or his counsel. The resolution was sent by registered mail to petitioner's given address and was received, thus constituting valid service under the applicable DOJ order. The period to appeal began to toll from the date of receipt, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration and appeal were filed out of time. On Issue 2: Mandamus to Compel Filing of Information: The Supreme Court ruled that mandamus would not lie to compel the filing of the information. Mandamus is available to compel a prosecutor to perform a discretionary function only in cases of grave abuse of discretion, where there is a clear legal right and a willful refusal to perform a mandated duty despite prima facie evidence of guilt. In this case, the Chief State Prosecutor did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Firstly, the amicable settlement between Concord and Vic Ang Siong, involving partial payment and an agreement to settle the balance, was a valid alternative dispute resolution mechanism and did not negate the possibility of settlement. Secondly, and crucially, petitioner Tam Wing Tak lacked the legal personality to file the criminal complaint. Concord, the corporation, was the payee and injured party, and its power to sue was lodged with its board of directors. Petitioner, as a minority stockholder and director, failed to show any authorization from the board to file the case on behalf of Concord, nor did he comply with the requisites for a derivative suit. Therefore, no clear legal justification or prima facie case was presented by the petitioner to warrant the filing of the information, and the public prosecutor was under no compulsion to do so.
Main Doctrine
Service of resolutions in preliminary investigations, governed by DOJ Department Order No. 223, can be made upon either the party or his counsel, and not strictly upon counsel as in court proceedings. Furthermore, a minority stockholder, without specific authorization from the board of directors, lacks the personality to file a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 on behalf of the corporation, especially when the corporation itself is the injured party and there is no valid derivative suit.