G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995
Reynaldo Tuanda, etc., petitioners
vs The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Bartolome
Binaohan and Delia Estrellanes, respondents
Ponente: Kapunan
Facts:
Petitioners
institute this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the resolution of Sandiganbayan
and its orders denying petitioners' motion for suspension of their arraignment.
February
9, 1989 Delia Estrellanes and Bartolome Binaohan were designated as industrial
labor sectoral representative and agricultural labor sectoral representative
for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental by DILG Secretary
Santos. They both took their oath of office on February 16 and 17, 1989.
Then,
petitioners filed a petition with the Office of the President for review and
recall of said designations. This was denied and enjoined Tuanda to recognize
private sectoral representatives. Estrallanes and Binaohan then filed a
petition for mandamus with RTC Negros Oriental for recognition as members of
the Sangguniang Bayan. It was dismissed.
The
matter was then brought to RTC Dumaguete City accusing Tuanda and others of
taking advantage of their official functions and unlawfully causing undue
injury to Estrellanes and Binaohan.
Petitioners
filed a motion with Sandiganbayan for suspension of the Criminal Case on the
ground that a prejudicial question exists. The RTC rendered a decision
declaring null and void ab initio the designations issued by DILG for violation
of the provisions saying that the Sanggunian itself must make a determination
first of the number of sectors in the city/municipality to warrant
representation.
Meanwhile,
the Sandiganbayan has issued a resolution saying that the private respondents
have rendered such services and the said appointments enjoy the presumption of
regularity; for these reasons, the private respondents were entitled to the salaries
attached to their office. Even if the RTC later declare the appointments null
and void, they would still be given salaries because of the period they acted
as representatives has made them a de facto officers.
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution in view of the RTC
nullification of the appointments. But it was likewise denied along with the
cancellation of their arraignment, instead Sandiganbayan required Tuanda and
the others to submit a written show cause why they should not be cited for
contempt of court for their failure to appear in court today for the
arraignment.
Hence,
this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition where petitioners
attribute to respondent Sandiganbayan the following errors:
A.
The Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioners' motions for the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case
B.
The Respondent Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in refusing to suspend
the proceedings that would entail a retrial and rehearing by it of the basic
issue involved
C.
The Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion and/or acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction in effectively allowing petitioners to be prosecuted
under two alternative theories that private respondents are de jure and/or de
facto officers in violation of petitioners' right to due process.
Issue:
The legality of private respondents' designation as sectoral representatives.
Held:
The
rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two
conflicting decisions. 14 It has two essential elements:
(a)
the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the criminal action; and
(b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. 15
Applying
the foregoing principles to the case at bench, we find that the issue in the
civil case, CA-G.R. CV No. 36769, constitutes a valid prejudicial question to
warrant suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings in the criminal
case against petitioners.
All
the elements of a prejudicial question are clearly and unmistakably present in
this case. There is no doubt that the facts and issues involved in the civil
action (No. 36769) and the criminal case (No. 16936) are closely related. The
filing of the criminal case was premised on petitioners' alleged partiality and
evident bad faith in not paying private respondents' salaries and per diems as
sectoral representatives, while the civil action was instituted precisely to
resolve whether or not the designations of private respondents as sectoral
representatives were made in accordance with law.
Private
respondents insist that even if their designations are nullified, they are
entitled to compensation for actual services rendered. We disagree. As found by
the trial court and as borne out by the records, from the start, private
respondents' designations as sectoral representatives have been challenged by
petitioners. They began with a petition filed with the Office of the President
copies of which were received by private respondents on 26 February 1989,
barely eight (8) days after they took their oath of office. Hence, private
respondents' claim that they have actually rendered services as sectoral
representatives has not been established.
Finally,
we find unmeritorious respondent Sandiganbayan's thesis that even in the event
that private respondents' designations are finally declared invalid, they may
still be considered de facto public officers entitled to compensation for
services actually rendered.
The
conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following:
1)
There must be a de jure office;
2)
There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and
3)
There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.
Sandiganbayan
Resolution was set aside.
