5.

JIMENEZ v judge SORONGON

Facts:

Jimenez ( president of Unlad Shipping, a local manning agency,) filed a complaint affidavit
against Antzoulatos, Alamil, Gaza, and Avgoustis of TMSI for syndicated and large scale
illegal recruitment. He alleged that the respondents falsely represented their stockholdings in
TMSIs articles of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency.

The corresponding criminal information was filed before RTC Mandaluyong but later the City
Prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information to which RTC denied as it found
PROBABLE CAUSE to hold respondents for trial.

ALAMIL filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer enforcement of
warrants. Judge Umali inhibited herself and the case was raffled to Judge SORONGON. It
treated respondent Alamil’s motion for judicial determination as a motion to dismiss for
lack of probable cause. The case was dismissed for lack of probable cause since there was
no evidence to indicate respondents’ alleged crime. RTC also set aside warrants of arrest.

Jimenez filed an MR, which the RTC denied; so Jimenez filed a notice of appeal, which Alamil
moved to expunge since public prosecutor did not authorize the appeal and Jimenez had
not civil interest in the case - did not have the public prosecutor’s conformity. Jimenez
countered that he has a legal standing to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since he is
the private complainant and a real party in interest who had been directly damaged and
prejudiced by the respondents’ illegal acts while respondents submit that the JIMENEZ lacks a
legal standing to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since the power to prosecute lies
solely with the State, acting through a public prosecutor; the petitioner acted independently
and without the authority of a public prosecutor in the prosecution and appeal of the case.

Jimenez elevated the case to the CA under Rule 65, certiorari but was denied as OSG had the
legal personality to file the petition in behalf of the People of the PH, as provided in Sec. 35,
Chap. 12 of the Administrative Code.

CA: He was not the victim of the crime, but merely a competitor in business.

RULING:

SC RULED in favor of respondents as OSG has the legal personality to represent the
Government and People in appeals of criminal case. Jimenez has no legal personality to assail
dismissal of the criminal case.

Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest "who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the
avails of the suit."

Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or

judgment of the case.

Procedural law mandates that all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of
criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
People, as stated in the Administrative Code (OSG shall represent Government in the SC and
CA in all criminal proceedings.

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 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
and 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.

The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the
People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.

Jimenez has no legal since the main issue raised by him involved the criminal aspect of the
case, i.e., the existence of probable cause. He did not appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary
interest as an offended party of the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of the criminal action
against the respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which pertains exclusively to the
People, as represented by the OSG.

The Court also ruled that Alamil was deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court
when he filed several motions before the RTC seeking the dismissal of the criminal case.

One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of
the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance,
and the consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court.