JM Dominguez Agronomic Co In. v.
Liclican - CA granted the petition – RTC order was annulled and set
GR 208587 | July 20, 2015 | Velasco, Jr., J.
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari Rule 45
FACTS
- In 2007, JM Dominguez Agronomic Co. (JMD) held its
annual stockholders meeting, wherein a new set of
directors and officers were about to be elected
- However, tension ensured during such meeting as
petitioners Patrick and Kenneth were not allowed to vote,
as they were not registered stockholders
o It was alleged that petitioners’ mother and
grandmother, both deceased, were the
stockholders, and that there was still no
settlement of their respective estates to
effectively transfer their shares to the petitioners
- Despite such, the election still proceeded as there was
quorum. Kenneth and Patrick were elected as officers of
the company, as VP and Secretary, respectively
- However, respondents issued a board resolution which
certified the election of directors and officers, but such
resolution contained different names of elected VP and
Secretary
- Consequently, petitioners filed a complaint against
respondents before RTC for nullification of meetings,
election and acts of directors and officers, injunction and
other reliefs (civil case)
o The case, after failed mediation, was referred for
appropriate Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)
- Meanwhile, petitioners immediately took hold of
corporate properties, represented themselves to JMD’s
tenants as the true and lawful directors of the company
- Subsequently, JMD, represented by petitioners executed
an affidavit-complaint charging respondents Liclican and
Isip with qualified theft (criminal case)
o Respondents conspired to withdraw P852,024.10
from corporation’s savings account (Equitablie-
PCI Bank) and issued a P200,000 check to be
drawn against JMD’s account with Robinson’s
Savings Bank
- City Prosecutor recommended the filing of information for
qualified theft. Upon filing of information, it was raffled to
same RTC Branch which handled the JDR (RTC Branch 7)
- Thereafter, Judge Tiongson-Tabora issued a warrant of
arrest against Liclican and Isip (assailed RTC order)
- Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with CA
to annul and set aside the order of RTC, anchored, among
others, on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question
o Petitioners, by filing complaint-affidavit, already
assumed that they are legitimate directors of
JMD which was the very issue in intra-corporate
dispute pending in RTC
aside for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
o Since there is doubt as to the sufficiency of the
authority of a corporate officer, Judge Tiongson-
Tabora should have exercised prudence by
holding the criminal cases in abeyance pending
resolution of the intra-corporate dispute which
private respondents themselves instituted
ISSUES
MAIN: WON there exists a prejudicial question that could
affect the criminal proceedings for qualified theft against
respondents – YES
- The intra-corporate (civil case) dispute posed a prejudicial
question to criminal case. The civil case involves the same
parties and is for nullification of JMD’s meetings, election
and acts of its directors and officers, among others. Court
intervention was sought to ascertain who between the
two contesting group of officers should rightfully be
seated at the company’s helm
- Without the resolution of civil case, petitioners’ authority
to commence and prosecute criminal case against
respondents for qualified theft in JMD’s behalf remained
questionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal
proceedings
WON subsequent resolution of prejudicial question cured the
defect – NO.
- Petitioners pointed out in their motion for reconsideration
filed before the CA, that the civil case was eventually
resolved in their favor. Thus, the issue of grave abuse of
discretion has already been moot and academic
- SC disagrees. When the assailed RTC Order was issued,
there still exists a prejudicial question. To grant the instant
petition and rule that the procedural infirmity has
subsequently been cured either by the Judgment or by
Judge Tiongson-Tabora’s inhibition would mean
condoning the continuation of the criminal proceedings
despite, at that time, the existence of a prejudicial
question
- Such condonation would create a precedent that renders
inutile the doctrine on prejudicial question, such that the
court trying the criminal case will be permitted to proceed
with the trial in the aberrant assumption that the
resolution of the prior instituted civil case would benefit
the private complainant in the criminal proceedings
- As such, the nullification of RTC order does not entail
dismissal of instituted criminal cases, but would merely
result in suspension of proceedings
- However, given the resolution of the prejudicial question
and Judge Tiongson-Tabora’s inhibition, the criminal case
may already proceed, and ought to be re-raffled to re-
 determine the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants of arrest against respondents

RULING: Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED. Criminal

case is REMANDED to RTC to be re-raffled to one of its
branches other than Branch 7.

NOTES
- Prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a
civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and
there exists in the former an issue that must be pre-
emptively resolved before the latter may proceed,
because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case
- Rationale behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting
decisions, and its existence rests on the concurrence of
two essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed