Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Respondent. G.R. No. 167711, October 10, 2008 comparison the original of the TOR and Certificate of Grades (COG),
as well as the original copies of the other documents in his 201
Facts: file. A subpoena duces tecum was subsequently served upon Prof.
Respondent Galicia was a former public school Marilyn T. De Jesus, Registrar of CCPC, for the purpose of certifying
teacher. Based on the academic records which were part of his 201 the authenticity of Galicias school records. De Jesus declined to
file, he graduated from FEU with a degree in civil engineering but certify the documents because no copies were on file in the school.
failed to pass the board examinations and has earned 18 units in Subsequently, the Ombudsman found Galicia guilty of
education, evidenced by a copy of a Transcript of Records from the Dishonesty for which the penalty of Dismissal From the Service,
Caloocan City Polytechnic College. Likewise, he passed the Forfeiture of Leave Credits and Retirement Benefits and Temporary
Teachers Professional Board Examination (TPBE) given on Disqualification for Re-employment in the Government Service for a
November 22, 1987. period of One (1) Year was imposed.
On December 2001, Reynaldo V. Yamsuan, then Principal of Galicia filed a motion for reconsideration and raised the
the MBASHS, reviewed the 201 files of his teaching staff and noticed issue of jurisdiction for the first time. He argued that it is not the
that Galicias TOR was not an original copy and required Galicia and Ombudsman, but the Department of Education, through the School
other teachers with similar records, to secure authenticated copies of Superintendent, which has jurisdiction over administrative cases
their TOR. All of the teachers complied except Galicia. Yamsuan against public school teachers, as mandated by RA 4670, (Magna
verified with the school the authenticity of Galicias TOR and was Carta for Public School Teachers).
informed that the said school had no record of the said TOR, and
more importantly, that they had no records that Galicia took up 18 Galicia further challenged the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
units of education in SY 1985-1986. by invoking Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act
which enumerates the instances when the Ombudsman may not
Acting on his findings, Yamsuan lodged an affidavit- conduct an administrative investigation:
complaint for falsification, dishonesty, and grave misconduct
against Galicia before the Ombudsman. 1. Complainant has an adequate remedy in
another judicial or quasi-judicial body;
In his Counter-Affidavit, Galicia stated that the complaint was 2. The complaint pertains to a matter outside
malicious and motivated by revenge. Galicia stressed that the TOR the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;
he submitted was authentic, as shown by the signature of then 3. The complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or
College Registrar Rolando Labrador. He argued that the made in bad faith;
certification from the present college registrar that CCPC had no 4. Complainant has no sufficient personal
record of his TOR did not prove that the document was interest in the subject matter of the grievance;
spurious. Rather, it only proved that CCPCs filing system of or
scholastic records was disorganized. Moreover, Galicia argued that 5. The complaint was filed after one year from
the TPBE was a highly specialized type of exam that could only be the occurrence of the act or omission
passed if the examinee acquired academic units in education. If he complained of.
did not take up the said 18 units in education, then he could not have
possibly passed the TPBE. According to Galicia, all of the above conditions were
present in the case filed against him. An adequate remedy existed in
the Office of the Secretary of Education; the matter was outside the And Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act grants the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman; the complaint was made in bad faith; ombudsman the power to Investigate and prosecute on its own
and complainant Yamsuan had no sufficient personal interest in the or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
matter. public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It
Lastly, Galicia claimed that the Ombudsman lacked has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
jurisdiction since the complaint was filed only in 2002, thirteen (13) Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it
years from the time he allegedly committed the dishonest act in may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
1989. According to him, this violated Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 6770, Government, the investigation of such cases. While Section 19 of
which mandated that all complaints must be filed within one year the Act enumerates the types of acts covered by the authority
from the occurrence of the act charged. granted to the Ombudsman. In the exercise of its duties, the
The Ombudsman denied Galicias motion for Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary authority. His
reconsideration. It declared that the Ombudsmans disciplining power is not limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or
authority extended the School Superintendent over administrative recommending penalties. He is to conduct investigations, hold
cases against public school teachers. Galicia elevated the case to hearings, summon witnesses and require production of evidence and
the CA. place respondents under preventive suspension. This includes the
power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
On January 20, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the or censure of a public officer or employee.
decision of the Ombudsman holding that jurisdiction over public
school teachers belonged to the School Superintendent as A review of the Ombudsman Act and the Magna Carta for
mandated by R.A. No. 4670. Public School Teachers reveals an apparent overlapping of
jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers.
Issue:
Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers
WON the CA erred in nullifying the decision of the grants jurisdiction over erring public school teachers to an
Office of the Ombudsman on alleged jurisdictional infirmity? Investigating Committee headed by the Division School
Superintendent which reads: SEC. 9. Administrative
Ruling: Charges. Administrative charges against a teacher shall be
heard initially by a committee composed of the corresponding
Section 12 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that
School Superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized
the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall act promptly on complaints
representative x x x.
filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality Galicia argues that jurisdiction exclusively belongs to the
thereof, including government-owned or controlled investigating committee on the main thesis that the Magna Carta for
corporations, xxx. Under Section 13, Article XI, the Ombudsman is Public School Teachers is a special law which should take
empowered to conduct investigations on its own or upon complaint precedence over the Ombudsman Act, a general law. The
by any person when such act appears to be Ombudsman maintains that jurisdiction among the two bodies is
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. He is also given broad powers concurrent since there is no express repeal in either of the laws that
to take the appropriate disciplinary actions against erring public would oust the Ombudsman from its authority over public school
officials and employees. teachers.
By virtue of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, found that the parties were afforded their right to due process when
original jurisdiction belongs to the school superintendent. The both fully participated in the proceedings before the Civil Service
intention of the law, which is to impose a separate standard and Commission (CSC). The Court ruled that while jurisdiction lies with
procedural requirement for administrative cases involving public the School Superintendent, respondent is estopped from attacking
school teachers, must be given consideration. Hence, the the proceedings before the CSC.
Ombudsman must yield to this committee of the Division School
Superintendent. Even in the earlier case of Alcala v. Villar, the Court In the present case, records show that Galicia was given the
held that: right to due process in the investigation of the charges against
him. He participated in the proceedings by making known his
Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act defenses in the pleadings that he submitted. It was only when a
of 1989, provides that the Ombudsman shall have decision adverse to him was rendered did he question the jurisdiction
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive of the Ombudsman.
officials of the Government and its subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies, including members Under the principles of estoppel and laches, We rule that it is
of the Cabinet, local government, government- now too late for Galicia to assail the administrative investigation
owned or controlled corporations and their conducted and the decision rendered against him.
subsidiaries except over officials who may be (Short Version)
removed by impeachment or over Members of
Congress, and the Judiciary. However, in Fabella v. Morales v CA and Binay
Court of Appeals, it was held that R.A. No. 4670,
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, Facts:
specifically covers and governs administrative
Binay, Jr. was charged with administrative and criminal
proceedings involving public school teachers. x
x x (Emphasis supplied) cases in connection with the allegation that he is involved in
anomalous activities attending the procurement and
Be that as it may, We hold here that the Ombudsmans construction phases of the Makati Parking Building project,
exercise of jurisdiction was proper. committed during his previous and present terms as City
Mayor of Makati.
The CA was in error in relying on Alcala, without taking into Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively
consideration the cases full import. In Alcala, the Court, while liable since Phases I and II were undertaken before he was
recognizing the jurisdiction of the School Superintendent, elected Mayor of Makati and Phases III to V transpired
nonetheless upheld the decision of the Ombudsman on the rationale during his first term. His re-election as mayor for a second
that the parties were afforded their right to due process during the term effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor,
investigation proceedings. Respondent in the Alcala case was given if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him
sufficient opportunity to be heard and submit his defenses to the moot and academic.
charges made against him. Thus, he is estopped from questioning The Ombudsman issued an order placing Binay, et al. under
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman after an adverse decision was
preventive suspension.
promulgated.
The CA granted Binays prayer for TRO enjoining the
In the same manner, the recent Estandarte case recognized implementation of the preventive suspension order.
similar circumstances cited in Emin v. De Leon. In De Leon, it was
According to the CA, it was more prudent on its part to issue Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative
a TRO considering that if it were established that the acts offense.
subject of the administrative cases against Binay, Jr. were all In fact the LGC and the RRACCS precludes condonation
committed during his prior term, then, applying the since in the first place, an elective local official who is meted
condonation doctrine, Binay, Jr.'s re-election meant that he with the penalty of removal could not be re-elected to an
can no longer be administratively charged. elective local position due to a direct disqualification from
Under the Condonation Doctrine, which applies only to running for such post.
administrative cases, There is no presumption in any statute or procedural rule
(1) the penalty of removal may not be extended beyond that the electorate, when re-electing a local official, do so
the term in which the public officer was elected for each with knowledge of his life and character, and that they
term is separate and distinct; disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had
(2) an elective official's re-election serves as a been guilty of any.
condonation of previous misconduct, thereby cutting In reality, most corrupt acts by public officers are shrouded in
the right to remove him therefor; and secrecy, and concealed from the public. Condonation
(3) courts may not deprive the electorate, who are presupposes that the condoner has actual knowledge of
assumed to have known the life and character of what is to be condoned. Thus, there could be no
candidates, of their right to elect officers. condonation of an act that is unknown.
However, the Court's abandonment of the condonation
Issue: Whether or not Whether or not the CA gravely abused its
doctrine should be prospective in application. It should
discretion in issuing the TRO and the WPI enjoining the
be, as a general rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its
implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr.
abandonment. Consequently, the people's reliance
based on the condonation doctrine
thereupon should be respected.
Ruling:
(longer version)
No. The CA's resolutions were all hinged on cases
enunciating the condonation doctrine. By merely following Morales v CA and Binay
settled precedents on the condonation doctrine, which at that Facts:
time, unwittingly remained "good law," it cannot be
concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion A complaint was filed against Binay and other public officers
based on its legal attribution. of the City Government of Makati charging them with
However, the condonation doctrine should be administrative cases for Grave Misconduct, Serious
abandoned. There is no constitutional or statutory basis Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
to support it. the Service, and criminal cases for violation of RA 3019,
The continued application of the condonation doctrine is Malversation of Public Funds, and Falsification of Public
simply inconsistent and impermissible under the Documents. Binay, Jr. was alleged to be involved in
auspices of the present Constitution which explicitly anomalous activities attending the procurement and
mandates that public office is a public trust and that construction phases of the Makati Parking Building project,
public officials shall be accountable to the people at all committed during his previous and present terms as City
times. Mayor of Makati.
The Ombudsman issued a preventive suspension order, There is no condonation because Binay, Jr. committed acts
placing Binay Jr., et al., under preventive suspension for not subject of the OMB Complaint after his re-election in 2013.
more than six (6) months without pay, during the pendency
of the OMB Cases. Issue: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing
Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking the TRO and the WPI enjoining the implementation of the preventive
the nullification of the preventive suspension order. suspension order against Binay, Jr. based on the condonation
The CA granted Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a TRO, doctrine.
notwithstanding Pea, Jr.'s assumption of duties as Acting Ruling: No. However, the condonation doctrine is abandoned,
Mayor. Citing Governor Garcia, Jr. v. CA, it found that it was but the abandonment is prospective in effect.
more prudent on its part to issue a TRO in view of the
extreme urgency of the matter and seriousness of the issues A. The WPI against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order
raised, considering that if it were established that the acts was correctly issued.
subject of the administrative cases against Binay, Jr. were all
committed during his prior term, then, applying the 1. The CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the assailed
condonation doctrine, Binay, Jr.'s re-election meant that he injunctive writs were all hinged on cases enunciating the
can no longer be administratively charged. condonation doctrine. By merely following settled precedents
on the condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly
Binays contention: remained "good law," it cannot be concluded that the CA
committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal
Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected attribution above.
Mayor of Makati in 2010; and
(b) Phases III to V transpired during his first term and that his B. The Condonation Doctrine
re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term 1. Condonation is defined as "a victim's express or implied
effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor, if forgiveness of an offense, especially by treating the offender
any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him as if there had been no offense."
moot and academic. 2. Under the Condonation Doctrine,
In view of the condonation doctrine, as well as the lack of a. First, the penalty of removal may not be extended
evidence to sustain the charges against him, his suspension beyond the term in which the public officer was
from office would undeservedly deprive the electorate of the elected for each term is separate and distinct.
services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and b. Second, an elective official's re-election serves as a
voted into office. condonation of previous misconduct, thereby cutting
the right to remove him therefor.
The Ombudmans contentions: c. Third, courts may not deprive the electorate, who are
The condonation doctrine is irrelevant to the determination of assumed to have known the life and character of
whether the evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of candidates, of their right to elect officers.
issuing preventive suspension orders.
3. It is not based on statutory law but a jurisprudential creation.
Reliance on the condonation doctrine is a matter of defense,
a. It originated from the 1959 case of Pascual v. Hon.
which should have been raised by before it during the
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. In which case, as
administrative proceedings.
there was no legal precedent on the issue at that
time, the Court, resorted to American authorities and 6. If condonation of an elective official's administrative
found that the weight of authorities seems to incline liability would perhaps, be allowed in this jurisdiction,
toward the rule denying the right to remove one from then the same should have been provided by law under
office because of misconduct during a prior term. our governing legal mechanisms.
4. The condonation doctrine does not apply to a criminal case. 7. The proposition that the electorate, when re-electing a local
Also, it would not apply to appointive officials since, as to official, are assumed to have done so with knowledge of his
them, there is no sovereign will to disenfranchise. life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his
faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any, is infirm.
C. The doctrine of condonation is actually bereft of legal bases. No such presumption exists in any statute or procedural
rule.
1. There is really no established weight of authority in the US a. Most corrupt acts by public officers are shrouded in
favoring the doctrine of condonation. secrecy, and concealed from the public. At a
conceptual level, condonation presupposes that the
2. The plain difference in setting, including the sheer impact of condoner has actual knowledge of what is to be
the condonation doctrine on public accountability, calls for condoned. Thus, there could be no condonation of
Pascual's judicious re-examination. an act that is unknown.
a. Pascual was decided within the context of the 1935
Constitution which was silent with respect to public 8. Liability arising from administrative offenses may only be
accountability, or of the nature of public office being a condoned by the President in light of Section 19, Article VII
public trust. of the 1987 Constitution.
3. The concept of public office, under the 1987 D. The Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine
Constitution, AS A PUBLIC TRUST and the corollary should be prospective in application. It should be, as a general
requirement of ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE AT rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its abandonment.
ALL TIMES is PLAINLY INCONSISTENT with the idea that Consequently, the people's reliance thereupon should be respected.
an elective local official's administrative liability for a
misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped
off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of
office, or even another elective post. Digested by:ROLOMA, Angelie Rose F.Rm. 405
NACHURA,
PERALTA, and
VILLARAMA,*
Before Us is a Motion for Reconsideration [1] of Our
Decision[2] filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez
Promulgated:
- versus -
December 4, 2009In Our decision dated 23 June 2009, We found that the public
prosecutor, in filing the Amended Informations, did not exceed the
authority delegated by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). We likewise ruled that no abuse of discretion could be
attributed to Judge Fortunito L. Madrona (Madrona) when he issued
the Orders dated 9 March 2005 and 31 March 2005 for the arrest of
respondent due to his failure to be present for his arraignment and
PABLO OLIVAREZ, for the confiscation of his cash bond.
Respondent.
Moreover, respondent maintains that since the Court liberally applied Moreover, respondent contends that Section 11, Rule 116 of
the rules when it did not dismiss petitioners defective petition, it the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply to this case,
should likewise apply the liberal and relaxed interpretation of the because the application thereof presupposes a resolution issued by
COMELEC directive in favor of respondent by finding that the a public prosecutor who has the authority to prosecute. Since the
COMELEC directive revoked the delegated authority of the public public prosecutor has been deprived of its delegated authority by
prosecutor. By filing the amended informations, despite receipt of the virtue of the 11 October 2004 directive, such directive has retroactive
COMELEC directive issued on 13 October 2004 which was application, it being favorable to him. This being the case, there is no
confirmed by COMELEC Resolution No. 7457, the public prosecutor Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor to speak of, because the
defied the entity from which it derived its authority and power to same was issued without authority.
prosecute the election cases involved. It being made in defiance of
The resolution of the instant motion boils down to whether
the COMELEC directive, all acts of the public prosecutor are void
the city prosecutor defied the order or directive of the COMELEC
and of no effect.
when it filed the amended informations.
As early as 14 December 2004, through respondents cognizance of respondents appeal. This, the trial court did not
Opposition to the Admission of the Amended Informations, the trial choose. It insisted on admitting the amended informations, which
were patent nullities for being filed contrary to the directives of the
COMELEC. Necessarily, all actions and rulings of the trial court dated 23 June 2009 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The
arising from these amended informations must likewise be invalid Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 September 2005 in CA-
and of no effect. G.R. SP No. 89230 is REINSTATED. The amended informations
filed by the City Prosecutor of Paraaque on 28 October 2004 are
declared VOID and of NO EFFECT.
As it stands, since there are no amended informations to
speak of, the trial court has no basis for denying respondents motion
SO ORDERED.
to quash. Consequently, there can be no arraignment on the
amended informations. In view of this, there can be no basis for
ordering the arrest of respondent and the confiscation of his cash Republic of the Philippines
bond. SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
For having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, G.R. No. 152889
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the trial courts orders --
ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II, Petitioner,
dated 12 January 2005 denying the Motion to Quash and admitting vs.
the amended information; 9 March 2005 denying the Motion for THE COURT OF APPEALS and HON. BASILIO R. GABO, JR. in
his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 11, Regional Trial
Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion to Quash, admitting Court, Malolos, Bulacan, Respondents.
the amended informations, and ordering the arrest of the respondent
and the confiscation of his cash bond; and 31 March 2005 denying
respondents Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to lift the Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with prayer for the issuance
Order of Arrest -- are declared void and of no effect. of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
67115 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner
against Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration filed by Judge of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan.
respondent Pablo Olivarez is GRANTED, and our assailed decision
Facts: On June 26, 2000, a complaint for the alleged murder of ISSUE: W/N a pending resolution of a petition for review filed with
Honorato Galvez and his driver was filed by the 303rd PNP CID) the Secretary of Justice concerning a finding of probable cause will
Team with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor against the suspend the proceedings in the trial court, including the
following: Cirilo de la Cruz, Guilberto Chico, Edmund Fernando, two implementation of a warrant of arrest.
persons named Ronald and Gerry, three (3) John Does, and Eulogio
Villanueva. Likewise, on July 14, 2000, a complaint for murder HELD: Petitioner's contention is wrong.
against petitioner Enrique Viudez II was filed by Estrella Galvez,
widow of Mayor Honorato Galvez, for the killing of the latter and his The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed
driver. with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-
existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accusedThe
Upon finding of probable cause to indict the petitioner and purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable
others for the crime of murder, the Investigating State Prosecutor cause for the arrest of the accused is to insulate from the very start
filed 2 Informations for murder with the RTC of Malolos, which then those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses
issued warrants of arrest on the same day. The petitioner filed a and anxiety of a public trial.
Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Suspend the Implementation
of the Warrant of Arrest, pursuant to Section 96 of Department (of The function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon
Justice) Circular No. 70, the implementation of the warrant of arrest the determination of probable cause is exclusive; thus, the
against petitioner should be suspended and/or recalled pending consequent implementation of a warrant of arrest cannot be deferred
resolution of the said petition for review. pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of
Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that is
The RTC denied petitioners Motion stating that, there was executive in nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of
no way for it to recall the warrant of arrest in the absence of any arrest would be an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the
compelling reason, and that jurisdiction over his person had not yet judge.
been acquired by it; hence, petitioner had no personality to file any
pleading in court relative to the case until he was arrested or Nowhere in the said provision does it state that the court
voluntarily surrendered himself to the court. Thus, petitioner filed a must hold the proceedings in abeyance. Therefore, the discretion of
motion for reconsideration but was likewise denied. Thereafter, the court whether or not to suspend the proceedings or the
petitioner filed with the CA but the latter court dismissed the petition implementation of the warrant of arrest, upon the motion of the
for certiorari for lack of merit and found no whimsicality or appellant or the trial prosecutor, remains unhindered. This is in
oppressiveness in the exercise of the respondent Judge's discretion consonance with the earlier ruling33 of this Court that once a
in issuing the challenged Orders. complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case
as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests
Hence, the instant petition. on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole
judge of what to do with the case before it.
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 The evidence for the prosecution shows that sometime in 1999,
Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to set aside and annul the Pedro Calanayan (hereinafter Calanayan), private complainant
Decision[1] dated November 23, 2005 rendered by the Court of herein, filed an action for ejectment and damages against Cecilia F.
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 28312. Duca, Ruel F. Duca, Arsenio F. Duca and Vangie F. Duca before the
4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Fabian-San Jacinto,
The CA decision reversed the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court Pangasinan, docketed as Civil Case No. 960 (SF-99). The case was
(RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case No. 2003-0194- decided in favor of Calanayan. There being no appeal interposed by
D[3] which affirmed an earlier decision[4] of the Municipal Circuit the aforesaid defendants, the said decision became final and
Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan, convicting executory. On November 22, 1999, a writ of execution was issued by
respondent Arturo Duca of the crime of falsification under Article 171 the MCTC to enforce the decision. On February 29, 2000, the money
of the Revised Penal Code. judgment was likewise satisfied with the public auction of the lot
owned by Cecilia Duca covered by TCT No. 233647. On March 1,
The facts as found by the CA are quoted as follows:
2000, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of Jocelyn Barque, the
highest bidder in the auction sale.
On October 19, 2001, Cecilia Duca filed an action for the Declaration On the other hand, Arturo testified that the signature atop the name
of Nullity of Execution and Damages with prayer for Writ of Injunction Aldrin Duca was his. However, he intersposed the defense that he
and Temporary Restraining order against Sheriff IV Vinez Hortaleza was duly authorized by the latter to procure the said tax
and Police Officers Roberto Vical, Alejandre Arevalo, Emilio Austria, declaration.On April 3, 2003, the MCTC of San Fabian-San Jacinto
Victor Quitales, Crisostomo Bonavente and Calanayan. The case rendered a decision, dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
was docketed as Civil Case No. 2000-0304-D.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Arturo F. Duca guilty
When the said case was heard, Cecilia Duca testified to the effect beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification defined and
that the house erected on the lot subject of the ejectment case is penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
owned by her son Aldrin Duca. In support of such claim she imposes upon said accused a prison term of two years, four months
presented Property Index No. 013-32-027-01-116131 (Exhibit B). At and one day to six (6) years of Prision Correccional and a fine of
the back of the said exhibit is a sworn statement showing that the P2,000.00.Accused Cecilia is acquitted for lack of evidence.
current and fair market value of the property, which is a bungalow, is
P70,000.00 with the signature affixed on top of the typewritten name The accused Arturo F. Duca is hereby ordered to pay to the
Aldrin F. Duca and subscribed and sworn to before Engr. Reynante complaining witness actual damages in the amount of P60,000.00
Baltazar, the Municipal Assessor of San Fabian, Pangasinan, on moral damages of P150,000.00 plus exemplary damages in the
December 10, 2001. The signature on top of the typewritten name amount of P100,000.00 plus cost.
Aldrin F. Duca is that of Arturo Duca. According to the prosecution, Dissatisfied with the decision, Arturo Duca appealed. On March 24,
Arturo made it appear that the signature is that of his brother Aldrin 2004, the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 44, rendered a decision,
who was out of the country at that time. Aldrin arrived in disposing the case as follows:
the Philippines only on December 12, 2001, as evidenced by a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration, Manila. Arturo even WHEREFORE, the decision dated April 3, 2003 of the 4th Municipal
made it appear that his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. Circuit Trial Court, San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan convicting
03841661 issued on December 10, 2001 is that of his brother accused Arturo F. Duca of the crime of Falsification defined and
Aldrin. That because of the misrepresentation, Cecilia and Arturo penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing
were able to mislead the RTC such that they were able to get a TRO upon said accused an imprisonment of two years, four months and
against Sheriff Hortaleza and the policemen ordering them to stop one day to six (6) years of Prision Correccional and a fine of
from evicting the plaintiffs from the property in question. P2,000.00, and ordering him to pay to the complaining witness actual
damages in the amount of P60,000.00, moral damages in the
amount of P150,000.00 plus exemplary damages in the amount of
Both accused denied that they falsified the signature of Aldrin P100,000.00 plus cost, is AFFIRMED.
Duca. Cecilia testified that she had no participation in the execution Aggrieved with the ruling of the RTC, Duca elevated the case to the
as she was in Manila at that time CA via a petition for review. On November 23, 2005, the CA
promulgated its assailed decision acquitting Duca of the crime
charged and reversing the RTC decision. The CA held:
However, the prosecution failed to establish the fact that Arturo was
not duly authorized by Aldrin in procuring the tax declaration. On the
contrary, the defense was able to establish that Arturo Duca was duly PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED
authorized by his brother Aldrin to secure a tax declaration on the ITS DISCRETION AND HAD ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION
house erected on the land registered under their mothers name. WHEN IT RESOLVED PRIVATE RESPONDENT ARTURO F.
DUCAS APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE OF
From the foregoing testimony, it can be deduced that Arturo could THE PHILIPPINES THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
not have falsified the Tax Declaration of Real Property under GENERAL THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREON.[7]
Property Index No. 013-32-027-01-116B1 (Exhibit B) by making it
appear that Aldrin Duca, his brother, participated in the Petitioner argues that the prosecution was denied due process when
accomplishment of the said document since he was actually acting the CA resolved the respondents appeal without notifying the People
for and in behalf of the latter. It must be noted that as early as June of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, of the pendency of
2001, Arturo has already been authorized by Aldrin; albeit verbally, to the same and without requiring the Solicitor General to file his
register the house in the latters name as he cannot do it personally comment. Petitioner contends that once the case is elevated to the
as he was abroad. This authority of Arturo was confirmed by the CA or this Court, it is only the Solicitor General who is authorized to
latters execution of an Affidavit dated January 19, 2002 confirming bring or defend actions on behalf of the People. Thus, the CA gravely
the procurement of the said tax declaration (Exhibit 6) as well as a abused its discretion when it acted on respondents appeal without
Special Power of attorney executed on June 17, 2002 (Exhibit 7). affording the prosecution the opportunity to be heard. Consequently,
Thus, what appeared to be defective from the beginning had already the decision of the CA acquitting respondent should be considered
been cured so much so that the said document became valid and void for being violative of due process.
binding as an official act of Arturo.
In his Comment,[8] respondent argues that there was no denial of
If Arturo did not state in the Tax Declaration in what capacity he was due process because the prosecution was properly represented by
signing, this deficiency was cured by Aldrins subsequent execution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and a private prosecutor who
Exhibits 6 and 7. handled the presentation of evidence under the control and
supervision of the Provincial Prosecutor. Since the control and
The RTCs conclusion that the special power of attorney executed by supervision conferred on the private prosecutor by the Provincial
Aldrin was a mere afterthought designed to extricate Arturo from any Prosecutor had not been withdrawn, the Solicitor General could not
criminal liability has no basis since from the very start, it has been claim that the prosecution was not afforded a chance to be heard in
duly established by the defense that Aldrin had verbally instructed the CA. According to the respondent, he should not be prejudiced by
Arturo to cause the execution of Exhibit B for the purpose of the Provincial Prosecutors failure to inform the Solicitor General of
registering his house constructed on his mothers lot for taxation the pendency of the appeal
purposes.[6]
The petition is impressed with merit.
Hence, the instant petition anchored on this sole ground:
The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases
before the CA and the Supreme Court is solely vested in the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of
Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides, viz.:
SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General And in Labaro v. Panay,[13] the Court held
shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, The OSG is the law office of the Government authorized by law to
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. represent the Government or the People of the Philippines before us
x x x It shall have the following specific powers and functions: and before the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings, or before
any court, tribunal, body, or commission in any matter, action, or
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court proceeding which, in the opinion of the Solicitor General, affects the
of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.[14]
and its officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and all
other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in Indeed, in criminal cases, as in the instant case, the Solicitor General
which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is is regarded as the appellate counsel of the People of
a party. (emphasis supplied) the Philippines and as such, should have been given the opportunity
to be heard on behalf of the People. The records show that the CA
Jurisprudence has been consistent on this point. In the recent case failed to require the Solicitor General to file his Comment on Ducas
of Cario v. De Castro,[9] it was held: petition. A copy of the CA Resolution[15] dated May 26, 2004 which
required the filing of Comment was served upon Atty. Jaime Dojillo,
In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or in the Sr. (counsel for Duca), Atty. Villamor Tolete (counsel for private
Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely complainant Calanayan) and RTC Judge Crispin Laron. Nowhere
in the Solicitor General. Under Presidential Decree No. 478, among was it shown that the Solicitor General had ever been furnished a
the specific powers and functions of the OSG was to represent the copy of the said Resolution. The failure of the CA to require the
government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all Solicitor General to file his Comment deprived the prosecution of a
criminal proceedings. This provision has been carried over to the fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case.
Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter
12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.[10]
Pertinently, Saldana v. Court of Appeals, et al.[16] ruled as follows:
Likewise, in City Fiscal of Tacloban v. Espina,[11] the Court made the
following pronouncement: When the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute
and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated (Uy vs.
Genato, L-37399, 57 SCRA 123 [May 29, 1974]; Serino vs. Zoa, L-
33116, 40 SCRA 433 [Aug. 31, 1971]; People vs. Gomez, L-22345,
Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court all criminal actions 20 SCRA 293 [May 29, 1967]; People vs. Balisacan, L-26376, 17
commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under SCRA 1119 [Aug. 31, 1966]).
the direction and control of the fiscal. The fiscal represents the
People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic
trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the
municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts. However, violation of the States right to due process raises a serious
when such criminal actions are brought to the Court of Appeals or jurisdiction issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-
this Court, it is the Solicitor General who must represent the People 300026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]) which cannot be glossed
of the Philippines not the fiscal.[12] over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right
of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said
right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370, court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the
[May 25, 1973] 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court
SCRA 416 [Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall
notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a lawless thing, be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioners motion
wherever it exhibits its head (Aducayen vs. Flores, supra).[17] for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon
proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and
The State, like the accused, is entitled to due process in criminal other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of
cases, that is, it must be given the opportunity to present its evidence the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an
in support of the charge. The doctrine consistently adhered to by this additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the
Court is that a decision rendered without due process is void ab petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for
initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void the most compelling reason and in no case to extend fifteen (15)
for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the days.
opportunity to be heard.[18]
Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
The assailed decision of the CA acquitting the respondent without regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
giving the Solicitor General the chance to file his comment on the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
petition for review clearly deprived the State of its right to refute the and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
material allegations of the said petition filed before the CA. The said sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (emphasis supplied)
decision is, therefore, a nullity. In Dimatulac v. Villon,[19] we held: Respondent appealed to the CA from the decision of the RTC via a
Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court. The
to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of society and respondent was mandated under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of
the offended parties which have been wronged must be equally Court to serve copies of his petition for review upon the adverse
considered. Verily, a verdict of conviction is not necessarily a denial party, in this case, the People of the Philippines through the
of justice; and an acquittal is not necessarily a triumph of justice; for, OSG. Respondent failed to serve a copy of his petition on the OSG
to the society offended and the party wronged, it could also mean and instead served a copy upon the Assistant City Prosecutor of
injustice. Justice then must be rendered even-handedly to both the Dagupan City.[21] The service of a copy of the petition on the People
accused, on one hand, and the State and offended party, on the of the Philippines, through the Prosecutor would be inefficacious for
other.[20] the reason that the Solicitor General is the sole representative of the
People of the Philippines in appeals before the CA and the Supreme
Further, the CA should have been guided by the following provisions Court. The respondents failure to have a copy of his petition served
of Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court: on the People of the Philippines, through the OSG, is a sufficient
ground for the dismissal of the petition as provided in Section 3, Rule
Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A party desiring to appeal 42 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the CA has no other recourse but to
from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise dismiss the petition. However, the CA, instead of dismissing
of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with
respondents petition, proceeded to resolve the petition and even ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the CA for further
acquitted respondent without the Solicitor Generals comment. We, proceedings. The CA is ordered to decide the case with dispatch.
thus, find that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its assailed decision. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, P e t i t i o n e r ,- versus-
CRASUS L. IYOY, R e s p o n d e n t
FACTS:
On a procedural matter, the Court notes that petitioner filed the
instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without filing a motion for Crasus married Fely on 16 December 1961 at Cebu City. After the
reconsideration with the CA. It is settled that the writ of certiorari lies celebration of their marriage, respondent Crasus discovered that
only when petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate Fely was hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant. In 1984, Fely
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a motion for left the Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.), leaving
reconsideration, as a general rule, must be filed before the tribunal, all of their five children, the youngest then being only six years old, to
board, or officer against whom the writ of certiorari is the care of respondent Crasus.
sought. Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless Barely a year after Fely left for the U.S.A., respondent Crasus
a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent received a letter from her requesting that he sign the enclosed
tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. divorce papers; he disregarded the said request. Sometime in 1985,
[22] This rule, however, is not without exceptions. In National respondent Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their
Housing v. Court of Appeals,[23] we held: children, that Fely got married to an American, with whom she
However, in Progressive Development Corporation v. Court of eventually had a child. At the time the Complaint was filed, it had
Appeals, we held that while generally a motion for reconsideration been 13 years since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus,
must first be filed before resorting to certiorari in order to give the and there was no more possibility of reconciliation between them.
lower court an opportunity to rectify its errors, this rule admits of
exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his Complaint that Felys acts
circumstances of the case. The filing of a motion for reconsideration brought danger and dishonor to the family, and clearly demonstrated
is not a condition sine qua non when the issue raised is purely one of her psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of
law, or where the error is patent or the disputed order is void, or the marriage. Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing,
questions raised on certiorari are the same as those already constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under
squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court. Article 36, in relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code of
[24] (emphasis supplied) the Philippines.
The CA decision being void for lack of due process, the filing of the Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim with the RTC on 05 June
instant petition for certiorari without a motion for reconsideration is 1997. She asserted therein that she was already an American citizen
justified. since 1988 and was now married to Stephen Micklus. She argued
that her marriage to her American husband was legal because now
being an American citizen, the law of her present nationality shall
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The govern her status.
assailed decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 28312 is hereby SET DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC Cebu: declared the marriage null and void on the basis of II. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is not
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. applicable to the case at bar.
(2) CA: affirmed RTC.
By its plain and literal interpretation, the said provision cannot be
ISSUE: applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because
Where the marriage between Crasus and Fely remains valid and at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen.
subsisting At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and
pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
RULING: Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws
YES.
At most, Felys abandonment, sexual infidelity, and bigamy, give
respondent Crasus grounds to file for legal separation under Article
55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, but not for declaration of III. The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code. While this Republic, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of
Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously marriages.
shackled to what is now a hopeless and loveless marriage, this is
one of those situations where neither law nor society can provide the
specific answer to every individual problem. The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the
Republic, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of
I. The totality of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to marriages.
support the finding of psychological incapacity of Fely.
Invoking Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines, respondent
The psychological incapacity must be characterized by Crasus argued that only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned
(a) Gravity It must be grave or serious such that the party would be to the RTC may intervene on behalf of the State in proceedings for
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages; hence, the Office of
(b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted in the history of the the Solicitor General had no personality to file the instant Petition on
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may behalf of the State. Article 48 provides
emerge only after the marriage; and
ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of
(c) Incurability It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the
Intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to That Article 48 does not expressly mention the Solicitor General
give meaning and significance to the marriage. The root cause of the does not bar him or his Office from intervening in proceedings for
incapacity be identified as a psychological illness and that its annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages. Executive Order No.
incapacitating nature must be fully explained. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, appoints
the Solicitor General as the principal law officer and legal defender of
the Government.[33] His Office is tasked to represent the In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198 (1997)],
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and
and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns the
or matter requiring the services of lawyers. The Office of the Solicitor role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as appear as counsel for the State:
such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers.[34]
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision
shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
The intent of Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating
ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may
proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15)
suppression of evidence; and, bearing in mind that the Solicitor days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of
General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land, the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent
then his intervention in such proceedings could only serve and function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id.,
contribute to the realization of such intent, rather than thwart it at 213]
Furthermore, the general rule is that only the Solicitor General is This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v. Sin [355 SCRA 285
authorized to bring or defend actions on behalf of the People or the (2001)] reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. Court of
Republic of the Philippines once the case is brought before this Appeals [Supra.] regarding the role of the prosecuting attorney or
Court or the Court of Appeals.[35] While it is the prosecuting attorney fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State[37]
or fiscal who actively participates, on behalf of the State, in a
proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before Finally, the issuance of this Court of the Rule on Declaration of
the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General takes over when the case Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
is elevated to the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since it shall be Marriages,[38] which became effective on 15 March 2003, should
eventually responsible for taking the case to the appellate courts dispel any other doubts of respondent Crasus as to the authority of
when circumstances demand, then it is only reasonable and practical the Solicitor General to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State.
that even while the proceeding is still being held before the RTC, the The Rule recognizes the authority of the Solicitor General to
Office of the Solicitor General can already exercise supervision and intervene and take part in the proceedings for annulment and
control over the conduct of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal therein declaration of nullity of marriages before the RTC and on appeal to
to better guarantee the protection of the interests of the State. higher courts. The pertinent provisions of the said Rule are
reproduced below
In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the
Solicitor General in several cases for annulment and declaration of Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition.
nullity of marriages that were appealed before it, summarized as
follows in the case of Ancheta v. Ancheta[36]
(4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of (2) Notice of Appeal. An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may
the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen
City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new
filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the
period. adverse parties.
Sec. 18. Memoranda. The court may require the parties and the Given the foregoing, this Court arrives at a conclusion contrary to
public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor those of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, and sustains the validity
General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims and existence of the marriage between respondent Crasus and Fely.
within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require At most, Felys abandonment, sexual infidelity, and bigamy, give
the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the respondent Crasus grounds to file for legal separation under Article
case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, but not for declaration of
papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code. While this
the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously
decision, with or without the memoranda. shackled to what is now a hopeless and loveless marriage, this is
one of those situations where neither law nor society can provide the
Sec. 19. Decision. specific answer to every individual problem.[39]
(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision
prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July
by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed 2001, affirming the Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, in
to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be Civil Case No. CEB-20077, dated 30 October 1998, is REVERSED
published once in a newspaper of general circulation. and SET ASIDE.
(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days The marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy
from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no remains valid and subsisting.
motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the
parties, the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General. SO ORDERED.