Villaraza v. Manalaysay

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 184097. December 9, 2015.]

F. ARTHUR L. VILLARAZA, petitioner,vs. CESAR P. MANALAYSAY AND EDGARDO G. BALOIS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 9, 2015, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 184097 (F. Arthur L. Villaraza vs. Cesar P. Manalaysay and Edgardo G. Balois). — The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1) petitioner and respondents' Joint Motion to Dismiss dated March 2, 2015 through their respective counsels, stating that they have freely and voluntarily agreed to mutually desist from pursuing any and all claims and/or counterclaims in the instant case with respect to each other with full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of such desistance and of their rights under existing laws and rules of equity, hence, petitioner withdraws the instant petition, joined by respondents, and both parties commit to consider this case closed and terminated with finality, and praying that the petition be dismissed;

(2) respondents' Motion for Leave to File and Admit the Attached Manifestation dated July 7, 2015;

(3) said Manifestation dated July 7, 2015 informing the Court, among others, that the parties in this case also entered into an amicable settlement in the defamation suit filed by the Villaraza & Angangco Law Offices and its partners (including petitioner F. Arthur L. Villaraza) against Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Fraport), Dr. Wilhelm Bender, Prof. Manfred Scholch and herein respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-1242 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 58;

(4) respondents' Motion for Leave to File and Admit Manifestation dated August 12, 2015 stating that due to recent developments in a Court of Appeals case docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 102071, they deemed it proper to file a manifestation and praying that the same be admitted; and

(5) said respondents' Manifestation dated August 12, 2015 stating that a final and executory dismissal of a related case serves to strengthen the parties' pending joint motion to dismiss the instant case.

For consideration is the Joint Motion to Dismiss 1 filed by the parties, informing that they have agreed to mutually desist from pursuing any and all claims and counterclaims in the present case with respect to each other. F. Arthur L. Villaraza (petitioner) prays for the withdrawal of his petition and Cesar P. Manalaysay and Edgardo Balaois (respondents) join him by asking for the dismissal of the present review.

The petitioner is the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 05-2301 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 58, which was spawned by a criminal information dated March 14, 2005 charging the respondents with libel. 2 On December 29, 2005, the respondents filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause. 3 In an Order 4 dated March 24, 2006, the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the criminal case. In so ruling, the RTC, reasoned, inter alia, that there is no proof that the respondents caused the publication of or exhibited the allegedly libelous matter. The RTC concluded that the element of publication is absent and disposed thus: CAIHTE

WHEREFORE, premises, considered, the motion is GRANTED and the criminal case of Libel against [the respondents] is hereby DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.

SO ORDERED.5

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). His Notice of Appeal was approved on January 8, 2007 6 and he was given until January 7, 2008 to file an Appellant's Brief. In the interim, the CA received the respondents' Motion to Dismiss Appeal 7 dated December 13, 2007 arguing that the petitioner, as a private complainant, has no legal personality to pursue the appeal of a criminal case. Per the CA's directive, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment to the motion stating that the petitioner's Notice of Appeal and Motion to File Appellant's Brief were filed without its conformity.

In its assailed Resolution 8 dated May 30, 2008, the CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that it was filed without the authority or participation of the OSG, the only authorized appellant in criminal cases, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by the [respondents] is hereby GRANTED and the present appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 9

Hence, the petitioner filed the present recourse praying that the CA judgment be reversed and the case be remanded to the RTC for trial on the merits.

Considering that the issue determinative of the present review is the legal standing of the petitioner, as a private complainant, to institute, on his own, the appeal of a criminal case, the Court sees no reason not to grant his prayer for the withdrawal of his petition.

It is a settled rule that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the OSG, acting on behalf of the State. This is explicit under Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code which vests solely in the OSG the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the CA and the Supreme Court, thus:

SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyers. . . . . It shall have the following specific powers and functions;

(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphasis ours)

The private complainant or the offended party therefore may not take such appeal. 10

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated May 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30861 is deemed FINAL and EXECUTORY. This case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED." (Villarama, Jr., J., no part due to his ponencia in the assailed CA resolution; Perez, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated July 9, 2014.) DETACa

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. See Temporary Rollo.

2. Rollo, pp. 357A-360.

3. Id. at 361-379.

4. Issued by Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras; id. at 470-476.

5. Id. at 476.

6. Id. at 570.

7. Id. at 571-602.

8. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring; id. at 67-81.

9. Id. at 81.

10. Rodriguez v. Gadiane, 527 Phil. 691, 698 (2006), citing People v. Judge Santiago, 255 Phil. 851, 861-862 (1989).