EN BANC
|
JAIME S. DOMDOM, Petitioner, - versus - HON.
THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and THE
PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. Nos. 182382-83 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: February 24, 2010 |
x - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By Affidavit of February 15, 2002,
Hilconeda P. Abril, State Auditor V of the Commission on Audit (COA) assigned
at the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC), requested the Office of
the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation on the transactions-bases
of the claims of Jaime S. Domdom (petitioner) for miscellaneous and
extraordinary expenses as a Director of PCIC, the receipts covering which were
alleged to be tampered.[1]
After
preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to
charge petitioner with nine counts of estafa
through falsification of documents in view of irregularities in nine supporting
receipts for his claims for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses, after
verification with the establishments he had transacted with. It thus directed the filing of the
appropriate Informations with the Sandiganbayan.[2]
The Informations were separately
raffled and lodged among the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan. The First, Second and Fifth
Divisions granted petitioner’s Motions for Consolidation of the cases raffled
to them with that having the lowest docket number, SB-07-CRM-0052, which was
raffled to the Third Division.[3]
The Sandiganbayan Third Division
disallowed the consolidation, however, by Resolutions dated February 12 and May
8, 2008, it holding mainly that the evidence in the cases sought to be
consolidated differed[4]
from that to be presented in the one which bore the lowest docket number. It is gathered from the records that the
Sandiganbayan Fourth Division also denied petitioner’s Motion for
Consolidation.[5]
Petitioner thus seeks relief from
this Court via the present Petition for Certiorari, with prayer for temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the
different divisions of the Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the cases
against him during the pendency of this petition.[6]
Petitioner argues that, among other
things, all the cases against him arose from substantially identical series of
transactions involving alleged overstatements of miscellaneous and
extraordinary expenses.
Respondent People of the Philippines
(People), in its Comment,[7]
counters that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration which is a
condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari; that the
petition was filed out of time since a motion for extension to file such kind
of a petition is no longer allowed; that consolidation is a matter of judicial
discretion; and that the proceedings in the different divisions of the
Sandiganbayan may proceed independently as the Informations charged separate
crimes committed on separate occasions.
In the meantime, the Court issued a
TRO[8]
enjoining all divisions of the Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the
trial of the cases against petitioner until further orders.
Prefatorily, the People raises
procedural questions which the Court shall first address.
Concededly, the settled rule is that
a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine
qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to
grant an opportunity for the court a quo to
correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by a re-examination of
the legal and factual circumstances of the case.[9]
The rule is, however, circumscribed
by well-defined exceptions, such as where the order is a patent nullity because
the court a quo had no jurisdiction;
where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court,
or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests
of the Government or of the petitioner,
or the subject matter of the action is perishable; where, under the circumstances,
a motion for reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner was
deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such
relief by the trial court is improbable; where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had
no opportunity to object; and where the
issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[10]
The Court finds that the issue raised by petitioner had been
duly raised and passed upon by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, it having
denied consolidation in two resolutions;
that the issue calls for resolution
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner; and that the issue raised is one purely of law, the
facts not being contested. There is thus
ample justification for relaxing the rule requiring the prior filing of a
motion for reconsideration.
On the People’s argument that a
motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari is no longer
allowed, the same rests on shaky grounds.
Supposedly, the deletion of the following provision in Section 4 of Rule
65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC[11]
evinces an intention to absolutely prohibit motions for extension:
“No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.”
The
full text of Section 4 of Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, reads:
Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (underscoring supplied)
That
no mention is made in the above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion
for extension, unlike in the previous formulation, does not make the filing of
such pleading absolutely prohibited. If
such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded
to state that “no extension of time to file the petition shall be
granted.” Absent such a prohibition,
motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound
discretion. The present petition may
thus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, at all
events, given its merits.
In
Teston v. Development Bank of the
Philippines,[12] the
Court laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases, viz:
A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The rule allowing consolidation is
designed to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression or abuse,
to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and to simplify the work of the
trial court – in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and
vexation to the parties-litigants.
Thus, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Mañalac, Jr.,[13] the Court disregarded the technical
difference between an action and a proceeding, and upheld the consolidation of
a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with an ordinary civil
action in order to achieve a more expeditious resolution of the cases.
In the present case, it would be more
in keeping with law and equity if all the cases filed against petitioner were
consolidated with that having the lowest docket number pending with the Third
Division of the Sandiganbayan. The only
notable differences in these cases lie in the date of the transaction,
the entity transacted with and amount involved. The charge and core element are the same – estafa through falsification of
documents based on alleged overstatements of claims for miscellaneous and
extraordinary expenses. Notably, the
main witness is also the same – Hilconeda P. Abril.
It need not be underscored that
consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of
proceedings which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and
a possible major abbreviation of trial.
It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord
with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of their cases before the courts.
Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting
decisions in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single judgment.[14]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The Third Division of the Sandiganbayan is
DIRECTED to allow the consolidation of the cases against petitioner for estafa through falsification of
documents with SB-07-CRM-0052, which has the lowest docket number pending with
it. All other Divisions of the
Sandiganbayan are accordingly ORDERED to forward the subject cases to the Third
Division.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
JOSE C.
MENDOZA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Resolutions of
[9] Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, G.R. No. 142913, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 120, 127.
[10] Tan v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 570, 576-578 (1997).
[11] Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the
Rules of Court; adopted on December 4, 2007.
[12] G.R. No. 144374,
[13] G.R. No. 145441,
[14] Yu, Sr. v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development Enterprises, Inc., G.R. Nos. 138701-02, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 618, 633.