2006

GR 134887 Doctrine of State Immunity:

When a public officer, in this case the Ombdusman, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any
injury caused by him is his own
ether or not SMP was le San Miguel Properties, Inc., Petitioner,
vs.
Sec. Hernando B. Perez, Albert C. Aguirre, Teodoro B. Arcenas, Jr., Maxy S. Abad, James G.
Barbers, Stephen N. Sarino, Enrique N. Zalamea, Jr., Mariano M. Martin, Orlando O. Samson,
ISSUE:
Whether the HLURB administrative case for specific performance could be a reason to suspend
the proceedings on the criminal complaint for the violation of PD No. 957 on the ground of a
prejudicial question.

HELD:
YES, an action for specific performance, even if pending in the HLURB, an administrative agency, raises a
prejudicial question that must first be determined before the criminal case for there exists a
prejudicial question
 if the award to the undisclosed bidder of the orbital lot 153°E is, in the civil case declared
valid for being within Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her from liability for
damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue
injury claimed to have been suffered by petitioner.
o account is in order

HELD:
YES,
liability and cannauthorized rehabilitation receiver, 130 residential lots in its subdivision in BF Homes
Parañaque. However, 20 TCTs (out of 40) were withheld delivery by BF Homes since Atty. Orendain had
ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the transactions;; BF Homes refused to deliver the
TCTs despite demands. Because of this, SMP filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of the Prosecutor
(OCP) of Las Pinas charging respondent directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in
violation of SecE: Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, et al., G. R. No. 137010, August 29, 2003, 410
SCRA 149.
1) However, Ark Travel filed an "Urgent Petition for Automatic Review" with the DOJ and its previous
decision was reversed and directed the City Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of
Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 which caused the MTC to issue an Order denying the
aforesaid Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the prosecution.
Private respondents Baguio and Ira filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the resolution by the DOJ which
was approved and consequently filed with the MTC a Motion for Reconsideration of its Order alleging that
there is no longer any obstacle, legal or se, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved in the criminal case, and the cogSMP’s criminal complaint for violation of PD No.
957 for lack of probable cause and for reason of a prejudicial question

Another contention of SMP:

SMP further submits that respondents could not validly raise the prejudicial question as a
reason to suspend the criminal proceedings because respondents had not themselves initiated
either the action for specific performance or the criminal action. It contends that the defense of
a prejudicial question arising from the filing of a related case could only be raised by the party
who filed or initiated said related case. The submission is unfounded. The rule on prejudicial
question makes no distinction as to who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi lex non distinguit
nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we ought not to distinguish.

Sec. Hernando B. Perez, Albert C. Aguirre, Teodoro B. Arcenas, Jr., Maxy S. Abad, James G.
Barbers,
nizance of which pertaiot be imputed to the State.