JEPSON DICHAVES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BILLY M. APALIT, RESPONDENT.

Dichaves versus Apalit

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Jepson Dichaves against Judge Billy M. Apalit, presiding judge of a Metropolitan Trial Court branch in Quezon City, for partiality and gross ignorance of the law in connection with the judge's handling of five criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law. The complainant was the private offended party in those criminal cases, which he himself caused to be filed against Ramon Navarro after five checks totaling 6,180,000 pesos were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to remind the bench that a judge's repeated rulings favoring one party, in disregard of settled jurisprudence, can amount to partiality and grave abuse of discretion warranting administrative sanction.

Procedural History

The complainant first caused the filing of the five criminal cases against Ramon Navarro before the respondent's court. When the respondent judge issued a series of orders favorable to the accused, the complainant elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals upheld the complainant and set aside the respondent's order suspending the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question. The complainant then filed this administrative complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which found the complaint meritorious and recommended that the respondent be held administratively liable. The Supreme Court then resolved the administrative case on the merits.

Facts

On July 29, 1994, Jepson Dichaves caused the filing of five criminal cases against Ramon Navarro for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, on the ground that five checks issued by Navarro, totaling 6,180,000 pesos, had all been dishonored for insufficiency of funds. On August 11, 1994, Navarro in turn filed a civil complaint for recovery of a sum of money against Ernesto Uyboco and Gaikoku Construction and Development Corporation. Navarro alleged that, upon his intercession, Uyboco and the corporation obtained loans from Dichaves, and that he issued the checks in question merely to guarantee those loans. In return, Uyboco and the corporation allegedly issued postdated checks to Navarro totaling 8,140,000 pesos.

Based on the filing of that civil case, Navarro moved to suspend the proceedings in the criminal cases, claiming that the civil case raised a prejudicial question. On October 5, 1994, the respondent judge granted the motion. The complainant moved for reconsideration. While that motion was pending, Navarro amended his civil complaint to implead the complainant as a defendant or unwilling co-plaintiff. On June 19, 1995, the respondent denied the complainant's motion, prompting the complainant to go to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the suspension order and held that the civil case did not involve a prejudicial question.

When trial resumed, Navarro sought the disqualification of the complainant's counsel as private prosecutor, and the respondent granted the motion, holding that the civil aspect was already being litigated in the civil case. Finally, on October 28, 1997, the respondent rendered a decision acquitting Navarro, on the ground that the checks had been issued merely to guarantee Uyboco's obligation. The complainant pointed to these three instances as showing gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge acted with gross ignorance of the law and partiality in suspending the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question.
• Whether or not the respondent judge acted correctly in disqualifying the complainant's counsel as private prosecutor on the ground that the civil aspect was already being litigated in the civil case.
• Whether or not the respondent judge acted correctly in acquitting the accused on the ground that the checks were issued merely to guarantee another's obligation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as it stood, provides:

A civil case constitutes a prejudicial question only if: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue is determinative of whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

This provision governs the first issue, because the respondent invoked a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal proceedings, and the Court measures that suspension against these two requisites.

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

This provision governs the second issue, because it fixes the only instances in which the offended party may be barred from taking part in the criminal prosecution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no prejudicial question. A prejudicial question is one whose resolution is a logical antecedent of the issue in the case and which pertains to another tribunal. Even if Navarro prevailed in his civil case against Uyboco and the corporation, that result would not determine his guilt under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere issuance of worthless checks is punishable, and it is immaterial whether the checks were issued merely to guarantee another person's obligation. At the time of the suspension order, the complainant was not even a party to the civil case. The respondent's order was laconic and did not explain how the civil case would determine the criminal case.

On the second issue, the Court held that the disqualification rested on a wrong assumption. There are only three instances when the offended party cannot take part in the criminal prosecution: if the civil action has been waived, if the right to institute a separate civil action has been reserved, or if the civil action was filed prior to the criminal action. None of these was done by the complainant. He did not bring the civil case; Navarro did, and merely dragged him into it as an unwilling co-plaintiff. Moreover, that civil case was not the civil action arising from the crime. The respondent's order was again laconic and stated no basis.

On the third issue, the Court held that the acquittal went against a long line of cases holding that what Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, that is, wrong simply because the law forbids it, regardless of intent. The law applies even where the dishonored checks were issued merely as a guarantee. The respondent disregarded both the complainant's citation of these cases and the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that the respondent's partiality was evident in his several orders favoring the accused, even to the extent of disregarding settled rulings.

Doctrine

A civil case is a prejudicial question only if the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and the resolution of that issue is determinative of whether the criminal action may proceed. The offended party may be barred from participating in the criminal prosecution only in three instances: waiver of the civil action, reservation of the right to institute it separately, or institution of the civil action prior to the criminal action. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check; it is malum prohibitum, and it applies even where the check was issued merely as a guarantee. An isolated error of judgment does not ordinarily make a judge administratively liable, but repeated orders favoring one party in disregard of settled rulings amount to partiality and grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Billy M. Apalit guilty of partiality and grave abuse of discretion and suspended him for six months without pay, with a warning that a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued, so a check issued merely as a guarantee is still covered. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a prejudicial question, the three exceptions to the private prosecutor's participation, and the administrative liability of a judge for partiality.