MAXIMO v. VILLAPANDO

JOHN LABSKY P. MAXIMO and ROBERT M. PANGANIBAN, Petitioners, Vs. FRANCISCO Z. VILLAPANDO, JR. Respondent. / FRANCISCO Z. VILLAPANDO, JR. Petitioner, Vs. MAKATI CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE, JOHN LABSKY P. MAXIMO and ROBERT M. PANGANIBAN, Respondents

G.R. No. 214925 / G.R. No. 214965

April 26, 2017

Facts:

Before us are consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated June 13, 2014, and Resolution dated October 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA which reversed the Decision dated May 30, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, Makati City in Special Civil Action No. 13-473. The RTC affirmed the Order of the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC), Branch 67, Makati City denying the Motion to Quash filed by petitioner Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr. (Villapando). Villapando is the assignee of Enhanced Electronics and Communications Services, Inc. of Condominium Unit No. 2821 and parking slot at the Legazpi Place in Makati City. Petitioners John Labsky P. Maximo (Maximo) and Robert M. Panganiban (Panganiban) are Directors of ASB Realty Corporation (now, St. Francis Square Realty Corp.), the developer of the said condominium unit. On November 23, 2010, Villapando filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City ( OCP-Makati), a complaint6 against Maximo and Panganiban and other directors/officers of ASB Realty Corp. (ASB) for Violation of Sections 17, 208 and 259 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957, otherwise known as the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree. Villapando alleged in his complaint that there was failure on the part of Maximo and Panganiban and the other directors/officers of ASB to comply with PD No. 957 relative to the registration of contracts to sell and deeds of sale (Sec. 17), time of completion (Sec. 20) and issuance of title (Sec. 25) with respect to the aforementioned condominium unit. The said criminal complaint for Violation of Sections 17, 20 and 25 was dismissed by the OCP-Makati in its Resolution dated July 12, 2011 on the ground that prior to the estimated date of completion of the condominium unit, ASB encountered liquidity problems and instituted a petition for rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which showed good faith on the part of ASB. On February 24, 2011, Maximo instituted a Complaint for Perjury, Incriminating Innocent Person and Unjust Vexation against Villapando docketed as NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-B-00509. The complaint was assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Evangeline Viudez-Canobas. On October 10, 2011, Panganiban also filed a Complaint for Perjury and Unjust Vexation against Villapando docketed as NPS-No. XV-05-INVll- C-00601. The complaint was assigned to ACP Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr.

The common allegation in the complaints of Maximo and Panganiban was that Villapando committed perjury when the latter alleged in the complaint he filed against them that they were officers and directors of ASB at the time the Deed of Sale was executed between ASB and Enhanced Electronics on February 28, 1997. They claimed that they were not even employees of ASB in 1997 as they were both minors at that time. After the filing of the Counter-Affidavit, Reply-Affidavit, and Rejoinder-Affidavit, ACP Canobas issued a Resolution ( Canobas Resolution) on August 3, 2011 finding probable cause against Villapando for the crime of perjury but dismissed the complaints for unjust vexation and incriminating innocent person. The Resolution was approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor (SACP) Christopher Garvida. Accordingly, on August 15, 2011, an Information dated July 26, 2011 for Perjury was filed against Villapando before Branch 67 of the METC, Makati City. The Information was signed by ACP .Canobas and sworn to before ACP Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. Meanwhile, on August 31, 2011, Villapando filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Canobas Resolution before the OCP-Makati alleging that the Information was filed without the prior written authority of the City Prosecutor. He also stated that violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 are committed not at the time of the execution of the contract to sell but after the execution of the contract, and that there is no allegation in his complaint-affidavit that Maximo was part of the "scheme in the execution of the contract to sell." Pending resolution of the aforesaid motion for partial reconsideration, a warrant of arrest against Villapando was issued by the METC. On October 14, 2011, Villapando filed a Motion to Quash Information alleging that the person who filed the Information had no authority to do so. He asserted that the Information, as well as the Resolution finding probable cause against him, did not bear the approval of the City Prosecutor of Makati, Feliciano Aspi, which is contrary to Section 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. On October 20, 2011, Villapando filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. According to Villapando, violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing crimes, hence, the allegations in the Information do not constitute an offense and a quashal of the same is warranted. After the filing of the Consolidated Opposition by Maximo and Panganiban, as well as the Reply thereto filed by Villapando, the METC denied the Motion to Quash in an Order dated November 11, 2011. The METC ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should be appreciated in favor of the public prosecutors. It found that the certification by ACP Canobas in the Information stating that the filing of the Information was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor constitutes substantial compliance with the rules. As to the allegation that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the METC held that the elements of the crime of perjury were sufficiently alleged in the Information. The decretal portion of the METC Decision states: WHEREFORE, considering that this case can still be heard and threshed out in a full blown trial, the Court DENIES the Motion to Quash the Information dated October 14, 2011 and its Supplements (to Motion to Quash Information) dated October 19, 2011. SO ORDERED.

Villapando moved for reconsideration of the Order of the METC dated November 11, 2011. Maximo and Panganiban opposed the motion and Villapando replied thereto. Also, a supplement to the motion was filed on June 14, 2012. Meanwhile, after an exchange of pleadings - counter .. affidavit, reply-affidavit, and rejoinder-affidavit, ACP Vermug, Jr. issued a Resolution(Vermug Resolution) in NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-C-00601 on January 13, 2012 finding probable cause against Villapando for the crime of perjury but dismissed the complaint for unjust vexation. The Resolution was approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor (SACP) Christopher Garvida who recommended for the filing of an Amended Information before the METC to include Panganiban as one of the complainants. Thus, on January 19, 2012, the prosecution filed a Motion to Amend the Information and to Admit Attached Information to include Panganiban as one of the complainants in the case. At this point, for a clear reading of the subsequent procedural incidents, We separately state the proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ) from the proceedings before the courts. Proceedings before the DOJ• As earlier stated, the Canobas Resolution pertains to the complaint for perjury filed by Maximo against Villapando which gave rise to the filing of the Information before the MeTC, but a motion to partially reconsider the said resolution was filed by Villapando. On the other hand, the Vermug Resolution pertains to the complaint for perjury filed by Panganiban against Villapando which gave rise to the filing of an Amended Information. On February 13, 2012, Villapando filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration40 of the Vermug Resolution before the OCP-Makati.

On February, 21, 2012, the OCP-Makati issued an Order denying Villapando's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Canobas Resolution. The Order stated that there was prior written authority for the City Prosecutor in filing the Information by virtue of Office Order No. 32 dated July 29, 2011. The finding of probable cause was also affirmed. The Order was approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi. Likewise, on March 20, 2012, the OCP-Makati issued an Order denying Villapando's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Vermug Resolution. The said Order merely reiterated the ruling in the Order dated February .21, 2012 denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Canobas Resolution. The said Order was also approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi. Aggrieved, Villapando filed separate petitions for review of the Canobas Resolution and the Vermug Resolution dated March 31, 2012 and May 7, 2012, respectively, before the DOJ. He stated in the petitions the same allegations in his motions for partial reconsideration. In addition, he contended that there was even no proof that Maximo and Panganiban were still minors at the time of the execution of the contract to sell because they did not submit any birth certificate .On November 28, 2013, a Resolution was issued by Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano denying the petitions for review filed by Villapando for failure to append to the petitions proof that a motion to suspend proceedings has been filed in court. The copies of the resolution and the complaint affidavit were likewise declared not verified. Proceedings before the courts: As previously mentioned, Villapando moved to reconsider the denial of his motion to quash the Information before the METC. In an Order dated February 11, 2013, the METC denied Villapando's motion for reconsideration thereby affirming the validity of the information, and at the same time, granted the prosecution's Motion to Amend the Information. The .Amended Information was signed by ACP Evangeline P. Viudez-Canobas and sworn to before ACP Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. on April 25, 2013, Villapando elevated the case to the RTC of Makati City via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) assailing the Orders of the METC dated November 11, 2011 and February 11, 2013. A Comment50 thereto was filed by Maximo and Panganiban, and a Reply to Comment was filed by Villapando. Subsequently, on May 30, 2013, the RTC issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which states, thus: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed 11 November 2011 order of respondent Judge in Crim. Case No. 36741 which denied petitioner's Motion to Quash the Information with supplement and the order dated February 11, 2013 which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and granted the Public Prosecutor's motion to amend Information and admit attached amended Information are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

The RTC posited that the presumption has not been disputed by the City Prosecutor. Undaunted, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dated July 31, 2013 was filed by Villapando before the CA. He raised before the CA the same issues: a) that the Information was filed without the prior written authority of the City Prosecutor; b) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. A comment on the petition was filed by Maximo and Panganiban and a Reply thereto was filed by Villapando. Before the CA, the parties filed their respective Formal Offer of Exhibits dated January 10, 2014 and January 14, 2014 for Villapando and Maximo and Panganiban, respectively. The parties also filed their respective memoranda. On June 13, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision reversing the RTC Decision. The fallo of the CA Decision states: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, in Special Civil Action No. 13-473 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 367041 pending in Branch 67, Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of new Information by an authorized officer. SO ORDERED. A Motion to Consolidate the two cases was filed by Villapando on April 29, 2015. In this Court's Resolution dated July 13, 2015, We ordered the consolidation considering that the two cases "have common facts and are rooted in the same issues."

.

Issue: 

(1). Whether or not the CA erred in its decision that since the Amended information was defective on its face for having been filed by an unauthorized person, there was no need to resolve whether Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses. 

(2). Whether or not the filing of an appeal with the DOJ as well as the filing of the petition with the CA would constitute forum shopping.

Held: 

(1). No, the CA did not erred in its decision that since the Amended information was defective on its face for having been filed by an unauthorized person, there was no need to resolve whether Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses. Under Rules of Court, Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court mandates that if the motion to quash is based on the alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. Had either of these two been done, this case should have not unnecessarily reached this Court.

(2) No, the filing of an appeal with the DOJ as well as the filing of the petition with the CA would not constitute forum shopping. Under Flores v. Secretary Gonzales, et al, 640 Phil. 694 (2010, that there is no forum shopping when a petition is filed with the CA while another petition is pending with the DOJ Secretary.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 13, 2014, and Resolution dated October 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 131085 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.