ACTING PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF COTABATO (INCLUDING SOUTH COTABATO) ALEJANDRO C. SIAZON, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, BRANCH II, GENERA…

Siazon versus the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato

The Case

This is Siazon versus the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, an original petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus brought by Alejandro Siazon as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Cotabato. He asked the Supreme Court to nullify several orders issued by the respondent judge in a murder case and in a related civil case, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The case matters for two enduring rules: the meaning of a designation as acting provincial fiscal under the Revised Administrative Code, and the requirement that a judgment or order be prepared and promulgated by a judge while he still holds authority over the court. It also teaches what happens to pleadings and orders when the proper government counsel is never served.

Procedural History

A murder complaint for the killing of Jaime Anchinges was filed in the Municipal Court of General Santos, Cotabato, against Adan de las Marias and three others. The municipal court denied bail and denied a motion to dismiss, but later issued orders allowing hospitalization and granting bail. After the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance, Siazon filed a petition for certiorari in that court, docketed as Civil Case No. 848, attacking those municipal court orders. While that civil case was pending, the respondent judge denied Siazon's motions in the criminal case and then dismissed the certiorari petition in Civil Case No. 848 on the ground, among others, that Siazon had no legal capacity to sue. Siazon then came to the Supreme Court by an original petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the trial of the murder case, and later granted the petition.

Facts

In the evening of April 18, 1965, Jaime Anchinges was killed. A complaint for murder was filed in the Municipal Court of General Santos against Adan de las Marias, Eduardo Montinola, Norberto Fragados and Alderico Lubaton. All were arrested. The accused asked for bail, claiming the evidence was weak, and De las Marias asked to be hospitalized. The acting municipal judge denied both, finding the evidence of guilt strong. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

A new municipal judge took office. On September 1, 1967, the Secretary of Justice designated Siazon as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Cotabato for the investigation and prosecution of the Anchinges case, under Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code. The municipal judge then allowed De las Marias to be brought to Manila for medical treatment. Montinola filed an urgent motion to be hospitalized; copies were served on the regular acting provincial fiscal and the provincial commander, who refused to accept them, and the motion was heard and granted. De las Marias was later granted bail of 50,000 pesos. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance, where it became Criminal Case No. 1647.

Siazon filed motions for reconsideration, insisting he had never been properly served with the pleadings and orders. When the municipal court said it had lost jurisdiction, he filed the certiorari petition in the Court of First Instance, Civil Case No. 848. In the criminal case, motions for bail on the ground of ill-health were filed by Lubaton, Montinola and Fragados; Lubaton's motion was granted, again without copies to Siazon. The accused were arraigned and trial was set, over Siazon's objection. He then filed this petition in the Supreme Court. The respondent judge later denied Siazon's motions in the criminal case and dismissed Civil Case No. 848, ruling that Siazon had no legal capacity to sue, that the creation of the City of General Santos had transferred his authority to the city fiscal, and that the bail matter was res judicata. By then, a new judge had already qualified for the same branch.

Issues

• Whether or not the designation of Siazon as Acting Provincial Fiscal under Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code gave him exclusive authority to prosecute the murder case, so that the failure to serve him directly with pleadings and orders rendered those pleadings ineffective and the orders void.
• Whether or not the dismissal of Civil Case No. 848 was correct.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Section 1679. When Secretary of Justice shall appoint acting provincial fiscal. When a provincial fiscal shall be disqualified by personal interest to act in a particular case or when for any reason he shall be unable, or shall fail, to discharge any of the duties of his position, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint an acting provincial fiscal, who shall discharge all the duties of the regular provincial fiscal which the latter shall fail or be unable to perform. Such officer shall, for the days actually employed, be paid out of the provincial treasury the same compensation per day as that provided by law for the regular provincial fiscal. The person so appointed shall be either a practicing attorney or some competent officer of the Department of Justice or office of any provincial fiscal. This may also be done in case of vacancy, pending the appointment of a permanent fiscal.

This provision is the basis for the Court's holding that the designee takes over the duties of the regular fiscal, rather than merely assisting him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for Siazon. The designation under Section 1679 is not mere assistance to the regular fiscal; assistance is covered by a different provision, Section 1686. Section 1679 contemplates a complete take over by the designated fiscal of all the duties ordinarily discharged by the regular fiscal. As the proper government counsel in charge of the prosecution, Siazon should have been served with the pleadings and orders at his known address in Manila. The Court stressed that while setting motions for hearing lies within the trial judge's discretion, that discretion should have been exercised so that government counsel could receive notice on time, considering his address and the service of mail. Pleadings filed without proof of service on him are, in the Court's words, no more than scraps of paper, and could not be the basis of court orders. Any order issued upon a defective pleading is a nullity.

On the second issue, the Court again ruled for Siazon. When the order dismissing Civil Case No. 848 was issued, a new judge had already qualified for the same branch, which terminated the respondent judge's temporary assignment there. For the validity of a judgment or order terminating a case on the merits, it must be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, signed by him, and promulgated during his incumbency as judge of that court. The order of August 28, 1968 in the criminal case and the order of September 10, 1968 dismissing Civil Case No. 848 were therefore issued without due authority.

Doctrine

An acting provincial fiscal appointed by the Secretary of Justice under Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code discharges all the duties of the regular provincial fiscal which the latter fails or is unable to perform. The appointment is not a mere assistance arrangement; it is a complete take over, and the designee is the proper government counsel who must be served with pleadings and orders. Pleadings filed without proof of service on the proper counsel are no more than scraps of paper, and orders issued upon them are void. Finally, a judgment or order terminating a case on the merits must be in writing, personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge, and promulgated during his incumbency; an order issued after his authority over the court has ended is without authority and void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared void the orders of August 28 and September 10, 1968, as well as the municipal court orders of October 18 and November 3, 1967, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a pleading without proof of service on the proper counsel is no more than a scrap of paper, and any order built on it is a nullity. Examiners use this case on the scope of an acting provincial fiscal's authority and on the requirement that a valid order be promulgated during the judge's incumbency.