CASE DIGEST: Omictin v. Hon. Court of Appeals

 

VINCENT E. OMICTIN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 148004                January 22, 2007

FACTS:

Petitioner Vincent E. Omictin, Operations Manager Ad Interim of Saag Phils., Inc., filed a complaint for two counts of estafa with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati against private respondent George I. Lagos. He alleged that private respondent, despite repeated demands, refused to return the two company vehicles entrusted to him when he was still the president of Saag Phils., Inc..

On June 24, 1999, private respondent filed a motion to suspend proceedings on the basis of a prejudicial question because of a pending petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) involving the same parties.

It appears that on January 7, 1999, private respondent filed SEC Case No. 01-99-6185 for the declaration of nullity of the respective appointments of Alex Y. Tan and petitioner as President Ad Interim and Operations Manager Ad Interim of Saag Phils., Inc., declaration of dividends, recovery of share in the profits, involuntary dissolution and the appointment of a receiver, recovery of damages and an application for a temporary restraining order and injunction against Saag (S) Pte. Ltd., Nicholas Ng, Janifer Yeo, Tan and petitioner.

The trial court denied respondent’s motion to suspend proceedings and motion to recuse.

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, respondent filed with the CA the petition for certiorari assailing the aforesaid orders.

The CA ruled that it is clear that a prejudicial question exists which calls for the suspension of the criminal proceedings before the lower court.

Incidentally, on January 18, the SEC case was transferred to the RTC of Mandaluyong pursuant to A.M. No. 00- 11-03-SC implementing the Securities and Regulation Code vesting in the RTCs jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes.

Meanwhile, on March 5, 2001, the CA, addressing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision, issued a resolution stating that the petition for review filed by private respondent has already Terminated on November 20, 2000 and a corresponding entry entry of judgment has already been issued by the High Court, that the same is final and executory, the private respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the decision 30 June 2000 before this Court is NOTED for being moot and academic.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a prejudicial question exists

RULING:

A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. Here, the case which was lodged originally before the SEC and which is now pending before the RTC of Mandaluyong City by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799 involves facts that are intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution is based.

Ultimately, the resolution of the issues raised in the intracorporate dispute will determine the guilt or innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa filed against him by petitioner before the RTC of Makati.

Logically, under the circumstances, since the alleged offended party is Saag Phils., Inc., the validity of the demand for the delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon the authority of the person making such a demand on the Company’s behalf. Private respondent is challenging Petitioner’s authority to act for Saag Phils., Inc. in the corporate case pending before the RTC of Mandaluyong. Taken in this light, if the supposed authority of petitioner is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper.

Likewise, by analogy, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied in this case. The issues raised by petitioner particularly the status of Saag Phils., Inc. vis-à-vis Saag (S) Pte. Ltd., as well as the question regarding the supposed authority of the latter to make a demand on behalf of the company, are proper subjects for the determination of the tribunal hearing the intra-corporate case which in this case is the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 214. These issues would have been referred to the expertise of the SEC in accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction had the case not been transferred to the RTC of Mandaluyong.

Strictly speaking, the objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.

While the above doctrine refers specifically to an administrative tribunal, the Court believes that the circumstances in the instant case do not proscribe the application of the doctrine, as the role of an administrative tribunal such as the SEC in determining technical and intricate matters of special competence has been taken on by specially designated RTCs by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799. Hence, the RTC of Mandaluyong where the intra-corporate case is pending has the primary jurisdiction to determine the issues under contention relating to the status of the domestic corporation, Saag Phils., Inc., vis-à-vis Saag Pte. Ltd.; and the authority of petitioner to act on behalf of the domestic corporation, the determination of which will have a direct bearing on the criminal case.