GALILEO D. SIBALA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. AIDA GIL DAMASO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL (BRANCH IV); ERNESTO CARDIÑO, PRIM…

Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of the
respondent Judge dismissing a complaint for libel directly filed with the
court, as well as the order denying the motion for the reconsideration of the
said order.

The petitioner, Galileo D. Sibala, and
the private respondents Ernesto Cardiño and Primo Maliwanag are the opposing counsels in case G.R. No. L-41143 of this Court, entitled, “Sulpicio Agapay, petitioner, versus
Judge Vicente Bullecer, et al., respondents,” a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.  The private respondents, Ernesto del Rosario
and Nicanor Guerra, are the President and Manager,
respectively, of the Davao Timber Corporation,
private respondent in said case G.R. No. L-41143.

In the Memorandum for the respondents filed in the
above-mentioned case, the private respondents, affirmed that the herein
petitioner, Galileo Sibala, is guilty of breach of
unprofessional and unethical conduct by “employing in the pursuance
thereof means which are not consistent with truth and honor and who repeatedly
encouraged either the commencement or the continuance of an action due to
corrupt motive or interest.”^[1]
As a consequence, Atty. Sibala filed a complaint for
libel against herein private respondents before the Provincial Fiscal of Davao Oriental.

In turn, the herein private respondents filed a motion in case G.R. No. L-41143, to punish Atty. Sibala
for contempt of court and this Court directed Atty. Sibala
to comment on the motion.  In view
thereof, the investigating fiscal suspended and held in abeyance the
investigation of the complaint for libel to await the Court’s final resolution
of the motion to punish Atty. Sibala in contempt of
this Court.^[2]

Subsequently realizing that the prescriptive period of the
offense is about to expire, Atty. Sibala filed a
similar complaint for libel with the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental on July
9, 1976.^[3]
After the filing of the complaint in court, Atty. Sibala
remembered that he still had a pending complaint with the Fiscal’s
Office for the same offense. 
Accordingly, on July 13, 1976, Atty. Sibala
filed a motion with the Fiscal’s Office “for the
withdrawal of all the exhibits/affidavits that have been filed herein, as he
has already filed a criminal case for libel involving the same
facts/circumstances as have arisen herein, so that the same may be presented to
the court of proper jurisdiction accordingly.”^[4]

The herein private respondents, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint upon the grounds that the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental has no jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary
investigation of the case and that the statements, alleged to be libelous, are
absolutely priviledged.^[5]

On November 23, 1976,
the respondent court issued an order,^[6]
the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice to complainant taking his complaint to the proper
agencies provided for by law.”

Atty. Sibala filed a motion to
reconsider this order,^[7]
but the same was denied on February
16, 1976.^[8]

Whereupon, Atty. Sibala filed the
instant recourse.

Commenting on the petition, the respondent Judge stated that the
law is specific that the preliminary investigation of a criminal action for
written defamation shall be conducted by the Provincial Fiscal, the City
Fiscal, or the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where
such action may be instituted and that the preliminary investigation contemplated
under the provisions of Sec. 13, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court,
authorizing the court of first instance to conduct a preliminary investigation
of a complaint directly filed with it without previous preliminary examination
and investigation conducted by the fiscal, cannot be performed by the court
since the petitioner had already sought the fiscal’s
office as his first choice in the said investigation.^[9]

The private respondents Cardiño and Maliwanag similarly claim that the respondent court has no
jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaint because
Rep. Act No. 4363, amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, expressly
provides that the preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written
defamation shall be conducted by the provincial fiscal, city fiscal, or the
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may
be instituted and does not apply in cases of libel pursuant to the doctrine
enunciated in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Moran in the case of Espiritu vs. De la Rosa,^[10]
and assumed as a settled rule in Montelibano
vs. Ferrer.^[11]
The private respondents further claim that the petition is moot and academic
since the case has already prescribed. 
Moreover, the alleged libelous statements are privileged communication
which cannot be made the basis of a libel charge.^[12]

The private respondents, Ernesto del Rosario and Nicanor Guerra, also claim that the respondent court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for the reason that the
respondent court has no jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation and
examination in complaints for written defamation since the applicable law on
the matter, Rep. Act No. 4363, a special law, expressly provides that the
preliminary investigation shall be con­ducted by the provincial or city fiscal
or by the municipal court or the city or capital of the province where such
action may be instituted.  The private
respondents cite the decision of the Court in the case of People vs. Hechanova, et al.,^[13]
in support of their contention.^[14]

The petitioner, Atty. Galileo Sibala,
upon the other hand, also citing the case of People vs. Hechanova,
supra, maintains that a court of first instance may conduct a preliminary
examination and investigation of a complaint for libel directly filed with it.

There is merit in the petition. 
In the case of Escribano vs. Avila,^[15]
this Court ruled that judges of first instance have jurisdiction to conduct a
preliminary investigation of a libel case directly filed with the court, so
that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the herein petitioner’s complaint
for libel.  The case of People vs. Hechanova, et al., cited by the parties, is not
applicable to this case since no preliminary investigation or examination has
been conducted in this case as the investigating fiscal suspended and held in
abeyance the investigation of the complaint upon being informed of the contempt
proceedings filed against the petitioner with this Court.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted and the orders
issued by the respondent judge in Criminal Case No. 660 Cir 71 of the Court of
First Instance of Davao Oriental, entitled,
“People of the Philippines,
plaintiff versus Ernesto Cardiño, et al.,
accused,” dated November 23,
1976 and February 16, 1977
are hereby annulled and set aside.  The
respondent judge is consequently ordered to proceed with the hearing of the
case in the ordinary course of law. 
Costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., on leave.

^[1] Rollo, p. 10.

^[2] Id.,
pp. 16-17.

^[3] Id.,
p. 9.

^[4] Id.,
p. 47.

^[5] Id.,
p. 13.

^[6] Id.,
p. 30.

^[7] Id.,
p. 31.

^[8] Id.,
p. 33.

^[9] Id.,
p. 40.

^[10]
78 Phil. 827.

^[11]
97 Phil. 228.

^[12] Rollo, p. 53.

^[13] G.R. No. L-26459, November
29, 1973, 54 SCRA 101.

^[14] Rollo, p. 36.

^[15] G.R. No. L-30375, September
12, 1978.