G.R. No. L-22677. February 28, 1967
PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, JESUS, MANUEL, MIGUEL AND VICENTE, ALL SURNAMED FORTICH-CELDRAN, SANTIAGO CATANE AND ABELARDO CECILIO, PETITIONERS, VS. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN AND HON. CO…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
A suit for annulment of an extrajudicial partition of properties
and for accounting was filed on February
3, 1954 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civil Case No. 3397-R).
Appearing therein as plaintiffs were: Jose, Francisco, Pedro, Jr., Ignacio, all
surnamed Abuton-Celdran (children of the deceased
Pedro Celdran by the first nuptial) and, as the administratrix of Francisco Celdran
(another brother), Modesta Rodriguez. Defendants were: Pablo Celdran
(child of the deceased by the first marriage who refused to join as plaintiff),
Josefa Vda. de Celdran (spouse of the deceased
by the second marriage), Manuel, Antonio, Pedro III, Jesus, Vicente and Miguel,
all surnamed Fortich-Celdran (children of the
deceased by the second nuptial).
After the defendants answered on May 28, 1954, a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff was
filed on May 24, 1957. It was signed “Ignacio Celdran“. This
motion has been marked as Exh. B-Josefa.
Subsequently, with leave of court, the plaintiffs (excluding
Ignacio) filed an amended complaint impleading
Ignacio Celdran as defendant. Ignacio Celdran
filed an answer and, later, on February
16, 1959, an amended answer with counterclaim
and cross-claim.
After trial but before judgment, Ignacio Celdran
had the document Exh. B-Josefa
(the motion to withdraw) examined by the Police Department of Cebu City. The police
were of the view that the same (signature therein) was falsified. Alleging newly
discovered evidence, Ignacio Celdran asked for new
trial, which the court denied.
All the parties, except Ignacio Celdran,
thereafter entered on May 6, 1959 into an amicable settlement, recognizing
as valid the aforementioned extrajudicial partition.
Regarding Ignacio Celdran, the court
rendered judgment on July 19, 1961,
declaring the same extrajudicial partition as valid for having been ratified by
him (Ignacio). Specifically, the court
found among other things that Ignacio signed the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa) after he received
P10,000 of the agreed P20,000
and two residential lots to be given to him in return for his aforesaid
ratification of the partition.
Said decision was later amended to require Pedro III, Antonio, Jesus, Miguel and Vicente, all
surnamed Fortich-Celdran, to pay Ignacio the balance
of the P20,000 aforestated
and to deliver to him the promised two parcels of land.
Ignacio Celdran appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals. And said appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. No.
30499-R, shown in the record before Us as still
pending.
Now on March 22, 1963, at the instance of Ignacio Celdran, an information for falsification of a public
document – that is, Exh. B-Josefa or the
abovementioned motion to withdraw in the civil case – was filed by the City
Fiscal of Ozamis in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.
Accused therein were: Pedro III,
Antonio, Manuel, Vicente, Miguel, and Jesus, all surnamed Celdran
(defendants in the civil case); Santiago Catane, as
subscribing officer; Abelardo Cecilio,
as the person who filed the motion.
As private complainant, however, Ignacio Celdran,
on December 12, 1962,
moved before trial to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case on the
ground of prejudicial question. The
reason given in support thereof was that the alleged falsification of the same
document is at issue in the civil case pending in the Court of Appeals.
Declaring that there was no pre-judicial question, the Court of
First Instance of Misamis Occidental denied on January 28, 1963 the motion to
suspend the prosecution. It ruled that
the alleged forgery was not an issue
in the civil case.
Assailing the above ruling, Ignacio Celdran
filed in the Court of Appeals on February
21, 1963, a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
(CA-G.R. No. 31909-R) to enjoin the CFI of Misamis
Occidental and the City Fiscal of Ozamis from
proceeding with the prosecution of the criminal case.
On February 18, 1964
the Court of Appeals decided said petition for certiorari, ordering the
suspension of the criminal case due to pre-judicial question.
Pedro III, Jesus, Manuel, Miguel and Vicente, all surnamed Fortich-Celdran; Santiago Catane
and Abelardo Cecilio –
accused in the criminal suit and respondents in the petition for certiorari –
appealed to Us from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 18,
1964.
Appellants would contend that there is no pre-judicial question
involved. The record shows that, as aforestated, the Court of First Instance ruled that Ignacio
Celdran ratified the partition agreement; among the
reasons cited by the trial court for said ruling is that Ignacio Celdran received P10,000 and
signed the motion to withdraw as plaintiff in the suit. Disputing this, Celdran
assigned as error in his appeal the finding that he signed the aforementioned
motion (Exh. B-Josefa) and
maintains that the same is a forgery.
Since ratification is principal issue in the civil action pending appeal
in the Court of Appeals, and the falsification or genuineness of the motion to
withdraw – presented and marked as evidence in said civil case – is among the
questions involved in said issue, it follows that the civil action poses a pre-judicial
question to the criminal prosecution for alleged falsification of the same
document, the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa).
Presented as evidence of ratification in the civil action is the
motion to withdraw; its authenticity is assailed in the same civil action. The resolution of this point in the civil
case will in a sense be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused
in the criminal suit pending in another tribunal. As such, it is a prejudicial question which
should first be decided before the prosecution can proceed in the criminal
case.
A pre-judicial question is one that arises in a case, the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue involved therein, and
the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal; that is, it is
determinative of the case before the court and jurisdiction to pass upon the
same is lodged in another tribunal.[1]
It should be mentioned here also that an administrative case
filed in this Court against Santiago Catane upon the
same charge was held by Us in abeyance, thus:
“As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly
forged by respondent attorneys in Administrative Case No. 77 (Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane,
etc., et al.) is necessarily involved in Civil Case No. R-3397 of the Cebu
Court of First Instance, action on the herein complaint is withheld until that
litigation has finally been decided. Complainant
Celdran shall inform the Court about such
decision.” (Supreme Court minute resolution of April 27, 1962 in Adm. Case
No. 77, Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane,
etc., et al.)
Regarding the procedural question on Ignacio Celdran’s
right as private offended party to file thru counsel
a motion to suspend the criminal case, the same exists where, as herein, the
Fiscal, who had direction and control of the prosecution, did not object to
the filing of said motion. And its filing
in this case complied with Sec. 5 of
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which provides:
“SEC. 5. Suspension by reason of
prejudicial question. – A
petition for the suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a
pre-judicial question in a civil case, may only be presented by any party
before or during the trial of the criminal action.”
Denial of the motion to suspend the prosecution was therefore
attended with grave abuse of discretion; and the issue having been squarely and
definitely presented before the trial court, a motion for reconsideration,
which would but raise the same points, was not necessary. Neither was appeal the remedy available,
since the order denying suspension is interlocutory and thus not yet appealable.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals under
review – ordering suspension of Criminal Case No. 5719, People v. Pedro Fortich-Celdran,
et al. pending before the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, until after Civil Case No. CA-G.R. No. 30499-R, Pedro A. Celdran, et al. vs. Pedro Fortich-Celdran
III, et al., shall have been decided – is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Merced v. Diez, G.R. No. L-15315, Aug. 26, 1960; Mendiola v. Macadaeg, G.R.
No. L-16874, Feb. 27, 1961; Zapanta v. Montesa, G.R.
No. L-14534, Feb. 28, 1962.