Gonzaga v. Gov. Garcia, Jr.
G.R. No. 201914 & 202156
April 26, 2023
FACTS:
Sometime
in 2004, the provincial government of Bataan caused the tax delinquency sale of
the properties of Sunrise Paper Products Industries, Inc. (Sunrise). Without
any other bidder at the public auction, the province acquired the immovables
consisting of a paper plant with its machineries and equipment and the parcels
of land where it is erected. To annul the auction sale and to prevent the
province from consolidating in its name the titles over the properties,
Sunrise, on April 21, 2005, filed a petition for injunction docketed as Civil
Case No. 8164 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bataan. Consequently, the
other creditors of Sunrise intervened in the proceedings.
During the pendency of the case,
the province represented by the governor, respondent herein, entered into a
compromise agreement with Sunrise on June 14, 2005. On the same date, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, through a unanimous resolution, approved the same.
Subsequently, the parties moved for the dismissal of the civil case, not on
account of the settlement, but on the ground that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction for failure of any of the parties to comply with Section 267 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. Upon
the same ground, the parties no longer sought judicial approval of the
compromise agreement.
However, the trial court refused to
dismiss the case and, on June 15, 2007, rendered its Decision declaring, among
others, that the auction sale was invalid, that the transfer certificates of
titles in the name of the province were falsified, and that the compromise
agreement executed by the parties was illegal. In G.R. No. 181311, currently
pending with this Court, the province questioned, among others, the said
decision of the trial court. By virtue of a Complaint-Affidavit filed by
Gonzaga, herein petitioner, against Gov. Garcia, et al, herein respondents,
were charged with the violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. In a Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Existence
of Prejudicial Question, respondents prayed that the Ombudsman hold in abeyance
its investigation of the averments in the complaint-affidavit and supplemental
complaint-affidavit because the same were intricately related to a case which
was pending before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 181311.
The Ombudsman resolved the case and
found that there was no prejudicial question that would justify the suspension
of the conduct of preliminary investigation. The following are the reasons: a)
The issues in the Petition for Certiorari are not similar, not even intimately
related to the issue in this case. b) the eventual resolution by the SC of the
issues raised in the special civil action for certiorari, even if in their
favor, is irrelevant to and would not necessarily determine the finding by this
forum whether respondents have probably committed the crimes of which they are
charged. c) the complainants in this case are not even parties to the Civil
Case the decision of which the respondents in their petition before the SC seek
to annul.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not there is a prejudicial question.
HELD:
No. At
the outset, the issue on the propriety of suspending the proceedings before the
Ombudsman, on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question, had
already been rendered moot by virtue of the Court's Decision dated November 24,
2021 in G.R. No. 181311. In the said Decision, the Court ruled, inter alia,
that the auction sale made by the Province of Bataan was null and void; that
the Province of Bataan and Sunrise Paper Products, Inc. were jointly and
solidarily liable to pay damages in the amount of P120,000,000.00 to one Victor
G. Gawtee whose machinery and equipment were taken as part of the auction sale;
and that the provincial officials of Bataan, respondents included, cannot be
held liable for damages because their specific acts were not established by the
plaintiff in that case. Jurisprudence teaches us that a prejudicial question
comes into play generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions are
pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related
that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the
criminal action can proceed. 33 Since the civil case has already been resolved,
the issue of whether there is a prejudicial question, as would necessitate a
pause in the criminal proceedings involving the respondents, is now moot and
academic. Indeed, a moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration
thereon would be of no practical value.
No comments:
Post a Comment