TAN VS GALLARDO (1976)

FACTS: Petitioners in this case seek the annulment of respondent Judge’s orders in criminal
cases denying petitioners’ motion for respondent judge to disqualify or inhibit himself from
hearing and acting upon their Motion for New Trial. The SC issued a Resolution asking the
respondent Judge to file his answer. Said Resolution also issued a temporary restraining order
to enjoin the respondent from further proceeding with the criminal cases.

The Solicitor General informed the SC that they are "persuaded that there are bases for
stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his resolution on the motion for
new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice. The OSG further submits that the
case should he remanded to the trial court for the rendition of a new decision and with
instruction to receive additional evidence proffered by the accused with the right of the
prosecution to present rebuttal evidence as may be warranted.

Private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the

respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case.

*contentions:
Petitioner claimed that the private prosecutor has absolutely no standing in the instant
proceedings.
The private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take
part in the proceedings, and to adopt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the
Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in the present
proceedings.

HELD: NO. To begin with, it will be noted that the participation of the private prosecution in
the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to
collaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that
may be required by this Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the
Solicitor General. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand
independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor General.

The role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party, with respect to the civil
action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. 'This civil action is deemed
instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil
action or reserves to institute it separately. Therefore, although the private prosecutors may be
permitted to intervene, they are not in control of the case, and their interests are subordinate to
those of the People of the Philippines represented by the fiscal.

It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent
the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is
subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent
with that of the Solicitor General, for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the
direction and control of the criminal proceedings, contrary to the provisions of law and
the settled rules on the matter.