Cabahug v. Pharmatrix Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 221203. June 16, 2021.]

OSCAR T. CABAHUG, M.D. AND MARVIN BASCO, M.D., petitioners,vs. PHARMATRIX CORPORATION AND JERIC JIMENO JUCABAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 221203 — OSCAR T. CABAHUG, M.D. and MARVIN BASCO, M.D., petitioners, versus PHARMATRIX CORPORATION and JERIC JIMENO JUCABAN, respondents.

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) assailing the Decision 2 dated September 17, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated October 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127196.

This case arose from a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 265 (RTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 144620-PSG entitled "People of the Philippines v. Oscar T. Cabahug and Marvin Basco" for violation of Section 31 in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code. 5 The Information states:

"On or about February 2009 to June 2009, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Oscar T. Cabahug, being then the incumbent President of, and Marvin Basco, being then an incumbent member of the Board of Directors of Pharmatrix Corporation, a duly organized corporation under the laws of the Philippines, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another and as such, with bad faith and in conflict with their duties as corporate officers of Pharmatrix Corporation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously organize Carels Pharmaceutical Corporation, a competitor pharmaceutical company, without informing Pharmatrix Corporation's Board of Directors of such fact and the extent of their participation therein, to the damage and prejudice of Pharmatrix Corporation, herein represented by Jeric J. Jucaban.

Contrary to law." 6

In an Order dated February 15, 2011, the RTC found probable cause to try petitioners for the crime charged and scheduled the arraignment on June 9, 2011. 7 Petitioners then filed an Omnibus Motion on June 8, 2011 praying that the information be quashed, the arraignment be deferred, and the proceedings be suspended because an alleged violation of Section 31 of the Corporation Code is outside the coverage of Section 144 of the same code. 8 The RTC, however, denied the Omnibus Motion. 9 Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but this was denied. 10

Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA. 11 The CA, however, denied the petition. 12 The CA ruled that petitioners availed of the improper remedy as the denial of a motion to quash cannot be assailed through a petition for certiorari. 13 The remedy for the denial of the motion to quash is to continue with the case in due course and if an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law. 14 Further, the CA ruled that a violation of Section 31 of the Corporation Code gives rise to criminal liability in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code. The CA cited the case of James Ient, et al. v. Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez, et al., CA-G.R. SP No. 109094, August 12, 2009. 15

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied this.

Hence, this Petition.

In their Comment, 16 respondents, however, prayed for the dismissal of the case as they informed the Court that on May 2, 2018, the RTC issued a resolution dismissing the case against petitioners pursuant to the ruling of the Court's First Division in Ient v. Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc.,17 where the Court held that no criminal liability can arise from an alleged violation of Section 31 of the Corporation Code. 18 Shortly thereafter, petitioners likewise manifested that the RTC had indeed dismissed Criminal Case No. 144620-PSG 19 and in their Reply, 20 petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the petition for being moot and academic in view of the dismissal by the RTC of Criminal Case No. 144620-PSG. 21

Given the foregoing and as prayed for by the parties, the Court resolves to deny the Petition for being moot and academic.

A case becomes moot and academic when the case no longer presents a justiciable controversy because of a supervening event, such that any declaration on the controversy would be of no practical use or value. 22

Here, there is no longer a justiciable controversy as the RTC has already dismissed the criminal case against petitioners. The Court's disposition of whether the RTC correctly denied petitioners' motion to quash the information would have no practical use or value.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 18-61, excluding Annexes.

2.Id. at 63-78. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.

3.Id. at 80-82.

4. Second Division and Former Second Division.

5. See rollo, pp. 63-64, 68.

6.Id. at 68.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 69.

10.Id.

11. See id.

12.Id. at 78.

13.Id. at 70.

14.Id.

15. See id. at 74-76.

16.Id. at 165-169.

17. G.R. Nos. 189158 & 189530, January 11, 2017, 814 SCRA 184.

18. See rollo, pp. 166-167.

19.Id. at 173.

20.Id. at 184-188.

21.Id. at 185.

22.Alliance of Non-Life Insurance Workers of the Philippines v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 206159, August 26, 2020, p. 28, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/17120/>.