Dvision of Five No.128625

7/24/2019 Dvision of Five No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dvision-of-five-no128625 1/9

Republic

of

the

PhiliPPines

COURT

OF

APPEALS

Marrila

ATTY.

ERNESTO

SANTOS,

roRuER

FOURTI-I

DlvlsloN

DIVISION

OF

FIVE

L.

DELO$

Petitioner,

CA.G.R,

SP

NO"

128625

Members:

-VETSUS_

CARAN

DANG,

ChairPerson,

BATO,

JR.,

GONZALES.SISON,

BARR.IO$,

and

SOR,ONGOhI,

JJ.

R.EGIONAL

TRIAL

COURT

OF

BAGUIO

CITY,

BRANCH

60

AI{D

BRANCH

7,

AND

UNIVERSITY

OF

MANILA,

RHPRESENTED BY

EMILY

D. DE

LECN,

ResPondents

Pronrulgateel:

1.

7015

RESOLUTION

CARANDANG,

J,:

This

resolves

private

respo-ndent

University

of

Manila's

(UM)

Motion

for

Reconsideration

rrf

Our

Amended

Decision

dated

21

November

2014

which

reconsidered

the

30

July

2013

Decision

of

the

special

Tenth

Divisiorr

of

this

courl

denyirrg

petitioner's

Petition

for

Ceftiorari.ln

the

said

Amended

Decision,

We

set

aside

the

trial

court's

finding

of

probable cause against

petitioner

for

the

crime

of

qualified

tlreit

and

quashed

the

warrant

of

arrest

aglryt

him

U_

{



CA-G,R.

SP

NO

128625

RESOLUTION

UM.sarguntentsinitsMotionforRecorrsiderationcanbe

summarized

as follows: (1)

th;

reversal

by

this

Court

of the

trial

court,s

finding

of

probable

cause

is

beyond

this

court's

certiorari

jurisdiction

as

tire'trial

court

has

the

exclusive

original

jurisdiction

to

try,

hear

and

resolve

conflictirrg

factual

is-s.ues,

(2)

as

a

fugitive

from

justice,

petitioner

has

no

p"riolality

to

file

the

instant

petition'

(3) our

vote

of

3-2

whiclr

reconsidered

tlre

utranimous

decision

of

the

Former

special

Tentlr

Division

is

tantamount

to

a

"tyranny

of

minority,,

because,

in

effect,

tlre

votes

of

tlrree

Justices

have

prevailed

over

those

of

tlre

five

Justices;

(4)

petitioner's

defenses

of

owner,s

conserrt

and

lack

of

intent

to

gain

are

evidentiary

in

nature

which

can

only

be

hearcl

ancl

ventilated

in

a

full

blown

trial;

(5)

ilris

court

erred

in

ruling

that

the

trial

court

gravely

abused

its

discretion

as

ilre

latter's

firrding

of

probable

cause

is

well-

grounded.

We

deny

the

Moticln

for

Reconsideration'

l-he first

argument

lras

Section

9 of

Batas

Pambansa

Court

of

APPeals

tlre

Power

to

no

basis.

Tlre

last

ParagraPh

of

Blg.

129,

as

amended,

grants

to

the

resolve

factual

issues'

Thus:

"l-he

Court

of

Appeals

shall

have

tlre

power

to

try

cases

and

conduct

hearings'

receive

&iO"n""

and

perform

any

and

all

acts

necessary

to

resolve

factual

issues

raised

in

cases

fallirrg

within

its

original

arrd

appellate

jurisdictiorr,

including

the

[o*"i

to

grant

and

conduct

new

trials

or

further

[io""uOind*

Trials

or

hearings

in the

Court

of

Rppeats

lnust

be

corttitruous

and

must

be

completed

within

three

(3)

rrronths,

unless

exterrded

by

the

Chief

Justice'"

Ttris

court

is

expressly

grantecl

by

law

ttrrough

our

cediorari

powers

to

strike

down

a,-,y

ot.l*r

that

was

issued

with

grave

abuse

li

J't.t"tion.1

By

grarrting

the

cefticrar

petition,

We

have

carefully

determined,

after"arr

exliaustive

examination

of

tlre

records'

tlrat

the

trial

court

gravely

abused

its

ciiscretion

whiclr

amounted

to

lack

or

excess

of

jurisdiciiorr

when

it

issued

the

assailed

orders'

As

We

have

discussecl

in

tlre

Antendec

Decision,

tlre

abuse

of

discretion

,i

I

Section

9(1),

Ilatas

Patrtbatrsa

Rlg'

129'

as atnelrclecl'



CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

was

too

patent

in

the

act

of

the

trial

court

in

firrding

probable

cause

againstpetitionerc{espitetheabsenceofthetwoelementsofthe

crime

of

qualifiecl

theft.

Although

it

is trr-re

that

a

finding of

probable

causeneedsonlytorestonevidenceshowingtlrat*o|:likely

thannotacrinrehasbeencommittedandWaScomrnittedby

accused2

in

this

case,

petitioner

ably

demonstrated

the

absence

of

the

aforemetrtioned

elemenG.

l.hus,

petitioner

need

not

be

subjectedtotheexpense,'igo"and.embarrassmentoftrial

because

t-,e

cteaity-slrowed

th;

the

trial

court

gravely

abused

its

discretion

wnen

it

overlooked

the

absence

of

these

two

elements

in

the

instant

case.

UM's

reliance

on

the

case

of

Marcos'Araneta

vs'

cOutl

0f

Appeals3isnrisplacedbecausethesaidCaSehasadifferent

factual

rnilieu.

ln

that

case,

ilre

suprenre

courl

nullified

the

decision

of

the

court

of

Appeals

which

granted

therein

private

respondent's

petition

for

ceiiorari

because

the

Cor-rrt

of

Appeals

did

not

confine

itself

within

lts

boundaries

in

resolving

whether

there

was

grave

abuse

of

cliscretion

on

the

parl

of

the

Regional

Trial

court

in

issuing

the

assailed

orders'

lt

must

be

stressed

tlrat

the

Court

of

Appeall

prernaturely

passecl

on

the

substantive

issue

of

the

existence

ancl

enforceability

of

the

assertecl

trust

allegedly

issued

by

ttre

Benerlicto

Group

tn favor

of

lrene

Marcos-Araneta

even

before

eviclence

on

tlre

nratter

coulcl

be

adduced'

lt

was

not

even

clear

in

the

complaint

whetlrer

the

said

trust

is

express

or

implied.

ln

this

case,

we

limited

ourselves

to

deterrnining

whether

there

was

a

grave

abuse

of

discretion

on

tlre

parl

of

the trial

court

in

issuing

thJ

assailed

Orders,

determining

whether

the

essential

elements

of

qualified

theft

are

present'

uM's

secorrd

contention

is

also

without

merit'

tt

must

be

borne

in

mincl

ttrat

petitioner

Iiled

the

instant

petition

for

ceftiorari

on

the

ground

that

the

trial

court,

in

issuirrg

the

assailed

orders'

gravely

abused

its

cliscretion

amounting

to

lack

or

excess

of

jurisdiction.

There

is

excess

of

jurisdiction

where

a

tribunal,

being

clothed

with

the

power

to

determine

ttre

case,

oversteps

its

authority

as

determined

by

law.

A

void

iudgment

or

order

has

no

iegat

,no

binding

effect,

force

or

efficacy

for

any

purpose.

ln

contemplation

of

law,

it

is

norr-existent.

suctr

iudgmerrt

or

order

*rV-

n"

rlrirt"o

in

any

action

or

proceedirrg

whenever

it is

2

Estr.aclavs.

O{lice

ol'tlre

(.\rrrhuclstttatl,

C.R.

Nos.2l2l40-41

'lanrrarl'

21'

2015;Sre

PCL

Feeders

Pte.

Ltcl.

vs.

Perez-,

Ci.R.

No

162126'

Decertrbet

9'2004'

r

G.R.

No.

154096.

AugLrst

22,

2008

'il



CA.G

R.

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

involved.a

Thus,

deems

to

lrave

jurisdiction.5

ln

ruled:

4

5

6

1

8

GuevarLa

vs. Sandiganbayan,

G

I{ Nos'

Id.

G.R.

No.

158064.

June

30,

2005'

cited

in

the

Decision

t'enclerecl

otr

July

30,

20

l3

G.R.

No.

178607'

Decernber'

5,2012'

138792-804.

March

31,

2005.

"The

Court

agrees

witlr

the

respondent's

contentionthatheWaSnotproscribedfrom

assaitini

int

nug"t

1'

2OOZ

Ordel

of

'the

RTC

before

the

CA

on ceftiorari'

even

before

his

arrest'

The

resp-ondent

believ'qd'

albeittQlloneouslv'

that

the

afffi-he

RTC

was

null

and

void;

mssailed

-anv

time'

either

anv

affiherein

it

is

involved

One

'.,uu.

ffi

il*sted

before

filinq

such

petitio;-;;n

recerpt

of

a copy

of-lhe

said

order'

,ro,,

*ETa,

*

*r*O*r"

''t"udu

'"''O

tn"

t'on'

to

urrril

th"

.u'''-'"

'n

un

'OOtoptiaJe

OrQteeding

for

th"

trd

p"p*"flutclerscorirrg

Ours')7

Moreover,

petitiotler's

filing

of

pleadings

seeking

affirmative

relief

is

equivalent

to

voluntary appearalrce and

subnrission

to

the

jrri=Ui"6on

of

ttre

court.

ln

Jimertez

vs.

Sorongona,

the

Supreme

Court

held

that:

petitioner

may

any

time.assail

the

order

whiclr

lre

been issued

fry

ttre

triat

court

in

excess

of

its

iuopt,

vs.

Hu'Ruey

Chtttt,,

the

Supreme

Coutl

"As

a

rule,

one

wlro

seeks

an

affirrnative

relief

is

deemed

to

have

subrlitted

to

the

iuriuOi.tlo,r

of

the

cout1.

Filing

pleadings

seeking

affirmative

relief

constitutes

voluntary

appearance'

and

tlre

consequent

jurisdiction of

one's

person

to

the

jurisclictiorr of

tlre

court'

-[lrus,

by

filing

several

motions

before

the

RTC

seeking

ilre

clisrrrissal

of

tlre

criminal

case'

responcletrt

Alarnil

voluntarily

subrnitted

to

the

jrrilOi.tio,r of

the

RTC,

Custody

of

the

law

is

not

iequired

for the

adjuciication

of

reliefs

otlrer

than

an

application

for

bail'"

by

the

Special

Tenth

Division'



CA.G

R

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

lnthisCaSe,petitionerfiledanUrgentornnibusMotionfor

Judicial

Determination

of

Probable CauJe,

To

Lift/Quash

Warrant

of

Arrest,

and

.fo

Deferisuspend

Arraignment

And/or

Any

Proceedings

as

well

as

a

IMotion

for

Partial

Reconsideration

seeking

various

reliefs

from

the

trial

court'

lndubitably'

he

voluntJrily

submitted

to

the

jurisdiction

of

that

court.

The

third

contention

is

also

bereft

of

merit'

UM's

claim

that

the

promulgation

of

Atttended

Decisiot-r

is

"odd"'

"absurd"'

and

,,unsensical

[sic]"

because

the

votes

of

three

Justices

ovedurned

the

votes

of

tlre five

Justices

is

outrageous.

uM

erroneously

lumped

together

the

unanimous

votes

of

the

three

Associate

Justices

in

the

Former

special

Tenth

Division

with

the

dissenting

opinions

of the

two

Associate

Justices

in

this

Division

to

come

up

wittr

its

own

tally

of

five

votes

verslrs

three

votes

of

the

majority

opinion.

Any

tawyer

wortlr

his

salt

can

easily

spot

the

absurdity

of

this

argument.

contrary

to

UM's

erroneous

claim,

the

rules

on

lnhibition

and

the

cornpositiorr

of

the

special

Division

of

Five

under

the

2009

lntertral

Rules

of

the

Court

of

Appeals

were

duly

complied

witlr

in

this

case.

lt

must

be

recalled

ttrat

in a

Resolution

dated

5

March

2014s,

flre

menibers

of

the

Former

Special

Tentlr

Division

inhibitecl

thernselves

from

tlris

case

after

they

issued

tlre

originat

Decision

otl

30

July

2-013.

Accordingly,

and

while

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration

was

pending,

the

case

was

raffled

to

this

Division

for

the

resolution

of

tlre

Motion

for

Reconsideration'

The

Special

Division

of

Five

was

constituted

when

the

unanimous

vote

of ilre

members

of

this

Division

could

not

be

attained

in

view

of

the

disset-rt

nranifested

by

the

Clrairperson'

Thus,

Associate

Justices

Rarnon

M.

Bato,

Jr.

and

Manuel

M'

Barrios

were

designated

by

raffle

as additional

members

of

tlre special

Division

of

Five,

The

conclusions

in

the

Amended

Decision

were

only

reached

after

consultations

by

and

among

all

the

members

of the

special

Division

of

Five.

The

votes

of

the

former

Division

cannot

be

considered

in

resolving

tlre

Motion

for

Reconsideration'

As to

the

fourth

and

fifth

arguments,

the

same

are

mere

rehashes

of

those

presented

and

have

already

been

passed

upon

in

the

Antended

Decision.

Nevedheless,

We

mairltain Our

positiort

that

the

trial

court

gravely

a[:used

its

cliscretiorr

in

finding

probable

cause

against

the

petitioner

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft

and

in

e

Associate

.Tttstice

Nirra

G

Antonio-Valetrzuela

itrlribitecl

case

on

l9

Novenrber'

20 13.

helsell

froni

lurther

participation

in

the



CA-G.R.

SP

NO

128625

RESOLUTION

issuing

a

warrant

of

arrest

against

him

cjespite

the

clear

showirrg

of

the

absence

of the

elements

of

intent

to

gairr

and

the

lack

of

owner's

consent

lt

is

fundamental

that

tlre

concept

of

grave

abuse

of

discretion

transcends

rnere

judgmental

error

as

it

properly

pertains to

a

jurisdictional aberration.

while

defying

precise

definition,

grave abuse

of

discretion

generally

refers

to

a

"capricious or

whimsical

exercise

of

jucJgment

as

is

equivalent

to

lack

of

jurisdiction." Corollary,

the

abuse

of

discretion

must

be

patent and

gross

so

as

to

amount

to

an

evasion

of a

positive

duty

or a

viftual

refusal

to

perform

a

cluty

enjoinecl

[:y

law,

or

to

act

at all

irr

contemplation

of

law.1o

Owner's

consent

was

obtained

bY

petitioner.

Petitioner's

use

of

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI

was

with

the

consent

of

his

father

who

was

at

that

time

the

majority

stockholcler

and

Presiclent

and

Chairman

of

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM.

Virgilio Delos Santos gave his consent

to

his

son

(herein

petitioner) to

use

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply

in

2007.

l-hereafter,

arrd until

Virgilio's

death

in

2008,

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

did

not object

to or

repudiate

said

consent.

The

Board

of

Trustees

of

LJM

could

have

easily

overruled

and

nullified

Virgilio's

clecision

to

allow

the

petitioner

to

use

its

electricity

and

water

supply

in Baguio

City.

The

fact tlrat

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

dicl

not

prevent

the

petitioner

to

cot-ttinue

to

openly

use

its

electricity and

water

supply

durirrg

the

lifetime

of

Virgilio,

and

even

inrmediately

ther-eafter

lasting

for

four

years,

clearly

manifests

that

it

acquiesced

to

Virgilio's

giving

of

consent

to

ttre

petitioner.

lt

was only

after

a

serious

farnily/corporate

squabble

that

happened

between

and

among

the

corporate

directors

tlrat

the

criminal

case

was

filed

agairrst

petitioner'

It

is

well-entrenclred

that

if

a corporation

knowingly

permits

its

officer,

or

any other agent,

to

perform acts within

the

scope

of

an

apparent

authority,

lrolcling

him

out

to

tlre

public

as

possessing

_

t

power

to do

those acts,

the

corporation

will,

as

against

any

person/

lll

who

has

dealt

in

good

faith

wrtlr

the

corporation

througtr

sucfi-lll

lfft

@1of.Itrstice,etal',(.i,R.No.197522,Septernber1l.20l3.,II



CA.G.R

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

agent,

be

estopped

from

cjenying

such

authority'11

Apparent

autlrority

is

derived

not

tnerely

frorn

practice'

tts

existence

may

be

ascedained

tl-rrough

1)

the

general

manner

in

which

the

corporation

holds

out

an

officer

or

agerrt

as

having

the

power

to

act,

or

in

other

words,

the

apparent

authority

to

act

in

general,

with

which

it

clothes

hirn;

or

2)

the

acquiescence

in

his

Icts

of

a

particular

nature,

with

actual

or

constructive

knowledge

thereof,

within

or

beyond

the

scope

of

his

ordirrary

.powers''2

Virgilio's apparent

authority to

juggle the funds

of

UM

with

his

own

funds

is

clearly

demonstraled

by-UM's

own

attached

evidencet',

to

wit:

"They

failed

to appreciate

tlre

fact

tlrat

it

was

even

my

iather

wlro

slrouldered

his

grandchildren's

u*p",,t*..

This

was

evidenced

by

a

cerlification

issued

by

the

PresicJerrt

and

Chief

of

Acadenric

Officer1a,

copy

of

whiclr

is

attaclred

hereto

as

Annex

"8"

attesting

itrat

my

brother's

second

mistress

has

been

receiving monthly

allowance

fronr

the

University

in tt^re

arnount

of I'line

Thousand

Eight

Huncired

TrruentY

Five

Pesos.

Xxx."

By

givirrg Virgilio

Trustees

cannot

now

Virgilio's

consent

given

water

supply

of

BPTI,

lntent

to

gain

is

wanting.

an

apparent

authoritY,

UM's

Board

of

deny

and

repudiate

the

legal

effect

of

to

the

petitioner

to

use

the

electricity

and

For

a charge

of

crime

to

prosper,

the

accused

must

have

been

shown

to

irave

acted

wittr

a

genuirre

criminal

intent.lu

lf

lre

was

acting

under

a

bona

frde

belieitnrt

he

has

a

claim

or

title

lr/

I

the

thing

Jllegeclly

stolen,

the

criminal

intent

is

missing.lu

L{

Mtrslt.oIler.G,I1'No'l48444'.TuIyl4.2008,.558SCRA113.lf

l2

People's

Aitcargo

atld

\.\/areltousilrg

Co..

It.tc,

vs.

Cotrrt

of

Appeals.

et

a1

,

G R'

No

117847'

October

7,

1998,

r,

Afficlavit

of

Ir4aria

Clorazon

I{antona

Llarnas

Delos

Sarrtos,

Attuex

"C"

ol'Allnex

"6"

of

private

responclent's

Comtrertt

clated

22

Malr

lQl3

Recorcls'

p

760'

'''

DL. E,rily

D.

De

[,eon,

rvlto is tlte

reptesetrtati'e

of UM

in

this

case

r5

US

vs. Dornitigo

Viera.

G

R.

No 861.

Deoetllber

20,

1902

16

Pit-og

vs.

People,

et

al., G.ll,

No.76539.

October

ll,

1990'



Petitioner's

claim

of

right

on

tlre

basis

of the

permission

given

by

his

father

negates

crimipat

intent

on

his

pad'

He

openly

used

BpTl's

electricitylrrd

water

supply

under

the

bona

fide

belief

that

he

was

allowed

and

authorized

by

his

father

to

use

the

same'

His

fathe,

o*n*J

majority

of tlre

shares

of

stocks

of

UM

and

was

at

that

time

its

President

and

Clrairman

of

the

Board'

He

practically

controlled

and

ran

ttre

business

affairs

of

the

university'

As

explainedabove,theBoardofTrusteeshadgivenVirgilioan

,p'pur"nt

authority

to

do

so

?s

shown

by

the

fact

that

it

allowed

virgilio

to treat the

finances

of

UM

as

if

they

were

his

own

personal

prJperty.

lt

clid

not

revoke

this

auth,rity

while

Virgilio

was still

alive

or

even

irnmediately

thereafter.

Tlre

allegation

therefore

tlrat

petitioner

had

the

intention

to

deprive

UIVl

of

its

personal

property

is

negated

by

the

fact

that

lre

relied

in

good faith

on

lris

fatlrer's

authority

to

use

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply'

CA-G.R,

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

WHEREFORE,

University

of

Marrila's

lack of

merit.

premises

considered,

private respondent

N/lotion

for

Reconsideration

is

DENIED

for

SO

ORDERED.

WE

CONCUR:

ARI

D,

CARA

Associate

Justice

,-/'

btrt-'--'

RAMbN

M.

BATO,

JR.

Associate

Justice

9

t"ru

fl 0;s*"

('f

/

7a-u

MARLENE

GONZALES-SISON

Associate

Justice

'7r

*-,-

I ni

^

ll

,")32/'-u'kZ

.

r)

i..

'



CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

RESOLUTION

I

{fffi-

fi

N-

*c$o?e$

w*weriw

re&

{*'*

*fu

iu

tug

/,rr'**rg

oPiru"a"'

Associate

Justice

rnwrNt-D.

S0RoNGON

lll

F.

Associate

Justice

Documents

Dvision of Five No.128625