DIGEST/FLORES MAY L. OROSA/ CHUA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (November 22, 2017)

 

G.R. No. 195248

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CRISTINA YAO, Respondents

FACTS:

Sometime in 2000, Yao, the respondent, alleged that she became acquainted to Chua, the petitioner, through his mother. His mother mentioned that her son is reviving their sugar mill business and asked Yao if she could lend them money. Yao acceded and loaned petitioner ₱l million on 3 January 2001; ₱l million on 7 January 2001; and ₱l.5 million on 16 February 2001. She also lent petitioner an additional ₱2.5 million in June 2001. As payment, the petitioner issued 4 (four) checks in these amounts but which were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Upon dishonor of the checks, Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office of the petitioner which was received by his secretary. Petitioner was thus charged with four (4) counts of violation of BP 22.

               When the case was raffled to Branch 58, it was then presided by Judge Elvira Castro. After mediation and pre-trial, Judge Castro was promoted to the RTC of Quezon City and thus, the case was continued by  the pairing judge Marianito Santos. Meanwhile, Judge Philip Labastida was appointed Presiding Judge for Branch 58 on July 25, 2007 and was supposed to took over the proceedings, but he died on December 2008. Hence, Judge Mary George T. Caldona was designated Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 28 and has assumed office on April 1, 2009.

               In this case, the decision was signed by Judge Santos, as pairing Judge, dated April 15, 2009, and judgement hereby rendered the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating BP 22 and was sentenced to pay a fine of 200,000 for each count and subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six months.

               Aggrieved of the decision, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari with the RTC assailing Judge Santos authority to render the decision.

 

ISSUES:

1.      Whether or not the decision promulgated and executed by the  Pairing Judge, despite the appointment of a Permanent Judge to a court, is valid.

2.      Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is a proper remedy for acts done by the presiding judge showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or exercise of jurisdiction

RULING:

1.      Judge Santos had the authority to render the assailed decision even after the assumption to office of the designated presiding judge of Branch 58.  Judge Santos was in due exercise of his authority as provided by Circular No. 5-98 that cases submitted for decision and those that passed the trial stage, where all the parties have finished presenting their evidence before an acting/assisting judge at the time of the assumption to office of the presiding judge, shall be decided by the former. The circular further provides an exception that the acting judge, despite the assumption to the duty of the presiding judge shall decide cases which are already submitted for decision at the time of the latter’s assumption for designation. Clearly, Judge Santos has the authority to render decision on April 5, 2009, notwithstanding Judge Caldona’s assumption to office.

 

2.       The petitioner availed the wrong remedy. Appeal, not certiorari, must be the proper remedy to question the decision of the court. It has been held that where the appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action of certiorari will not be entertained – these two remedies are mutually exclusive, not alternative, or successive. The court held that the proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgement on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The existence and availability of the right to appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari.