FELIMON MANANGAN, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA, BRANCH 28, RESPONDENT.

For abuse of Court processes, hopping from one forum to another, filing
a labyrinth of cases and pleadings, thwarting the smooth prosecution of
Criminal Case No. 639 against him for no less than twelve (12) years, and for
masquerading as Filemon Manangan when his real name is Andres Culanag,
petitioner has brought upon himself the severest censure and a punishment for contempt. The Petition for Certiorari he has
filed likewise calls for dismissal.

The Petition, Amended Petition, and Second Amended Petition seek
the annulment of the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 639 of respondent
Court, including the Alias Warrant of Arrest issued by it, dated 19 July 1979,
“for being stale/functus officio.” It is claimed, inter alia, that respondent Court committed grave abuse
of discretion in making it appear that petitioner was duly tried and convicted
when the contrary was true, and that the Alias Warrant of Arrest was
irregularly issued because respondent Court had already accepted a property
bond.

In the Amended Petition, petitioner further alleges that
respondent Court had irregularly assumed jurisdiction as it is the
Sandiganbayan that has exclusive original jurisdiction over the case
considering that he was Legal Officer I of the Bureau of Lands, Region II, and
that he had supposedly committed the offense in relation to that office.

Piecing together the facts from the hodgepodge of quotations from
the Decisions in the different cases filed by petitioner, we recite the
relevant ones below.

On 7 November 1977, petitioner, representing himself as a lawyer,
was appointed Legal Officer I of the Bureau of Lands in Region II (p. 98,
Rollo).

On 30 June 1978, Criminal Case No. 639 entitled “People v.
Filemon Manangan alias Andres Culanag” (Annex D, Petition, Rollo, UDK 3906, p.
20) was filed before the then Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, First
Judicial District, Bayombong, charging petitioner with “Execution of Deeds by
Intimidation” under Article 298 of the
Revised Penal Code (the Criminal Case, for short). Apparently, the Director of Lands had given his imprimatur to
the charge.

On the same date, an Order of Arrest was issued by then Judge
Gabriel Dunuan of respondent Court (Rollo, UDK 3906, p. 21).

On 18 April 1979, petitioner filed before this Court a Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Writ of Preliminary
Injunction entitled “Filemon de Asis Manangan v. Court of First Instance, et
al.,” in UDK No. 3906, assailing the jurisdiction of respondent Court to try
the criminal case and seeking to stay the Order of Arrest of 30 June 1978. The petition
was dismissed on 7 May 1979 for non-payment of legal fees (p. 99,
Rollo).

On 10 and 18 July 1978, the dates set for preliminary
investigation, petitioner did not show up and, in fact, disappeared for about a
year.

On 31 July 1978, a Second Amended Information was filed (Comment,
Solicitor General, p. 61, Rollo), this time identifying the accused as “Andres
Culanag (alias Andres M. Culanag, Filemon Manangan, Atty. Filemon A. Manangan
and Atty. Ross V. Pangilinan).”

On 8 July 1979, petitioner surfaced and, through al­leged
counsel, posted a bailbond with the Municipal Circuit Court of San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur (Resolution of the RTC, Nueva Vizcaya, 25 March 1983, Annex
B, Petition, p. 2).

On 19 July 1979, an Alias Warrant of Arrest was issued by Judge
Gabriel Dunuan. It is this Alias
Warrant that is challenged herein.

On 12 September 1979, petitioner filed an ex-parte Motion to
Dismiss the Criminal Case, which was denied by respondent Court (see CA-G.R.
No. 11588-SP, p. 2).

Petitioner then resorted to a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11588-SP entitled “Filemon Manangan
v. Director of Lands and CFI of Nueva Vizcaya.” The Petition sought to (1)
nullify the decision of the Director of Lands, dated 27 March 1980, finding petitioner guilty of extortion, impersonation and
abandonment of office and ordering his dismissal from the service; and (2)
“require respondent CFI of Nueva Ecija to dismiss Criminal Case No. 639 pending
in its Court.” In a Decision, promulgated on 27 February 1981, the Appellate
Court dismissed the Petition for “absolute lack of legal and factual basis” and
holding, among others, that “the non-withdrawal of the Information for
execution of deeds by intimidation x x x is
not covered by mandamus” (hereinafter, the German Decision).^[1]

On 30 October 1981, before respondent Court, a Motion for
Reconsideration was filed by petitioner, ostensibly through counsel, Atty.
Benjamin Facun, asking that the Criminal Case be dismissed on the ground that
the accused had already died on 29 September 1971 such that respondent Court
had not acquired jurisdiction over his person. The Motion was denied.

On 22 February 1982, erroneously construing the German Decision
as a final judgment of conviction, respondent Court reset the promulgation to
19 April 1982 and ordered the bondsmen to produce the body of the accused on
said date (Annex A, Petition). Realizing the mistake, on 9 July 1982, respondent Court vacated said
order and ruled that “the warrant of arrest issued by this Court through Judge
Gabriel Dunuan on 19 July 1979, shall remain in full force and effect” (Annex
F, Petition).

On 25 June 1982, petitioner again resorted to the Court of
Appeals in another Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. No. SP-14428) filed
by one Atty. Benjamin Facun as counsel for petitioner, this time praying for
the annulment of the proceedings in the Criminal Case “on the ground that the
accused was already dead when the decision finding him guilty of the crime x x
x was rendered.” The pleading alleged “that petitioner is of age, Filipino,
deceased, but has come to this Honorable Court through counsel x x x.” In a
Decision promulgated on 29 November 1982, Certiorari was denied for
being devoid of merit inasmuch as “there is nothing on record to show that such
dismissal had been sought before the decision was rendered” (briefly, the
Kapunan Decision).^[2]
(Actually, no judgment has been rendered by respondent Court).

Unfazed by the adverse Kapunan Decision, the supposed heirs of
the accused, on 10 February 1983, filed a Manifestation before respondent Court
asking for the dismissal and termination of the Criminal Case on the same
ground that the accused had allegedly died.

On 25 March 1983, Judge Quirino A. Catral of respondent Court
refused to declare the case closed and terminated inasmuch as the accused was
alive on 8 July 1979 when he posted his bailbond (citing the Kapunan Decision)
and reiterated that the “alias warrant issued by the Court on July 19, 1979 which up to the present has
not yet been served upon the accused as in full force and effect.”

For the third time, the case was elevated to the then Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R.
No. SP-00707, entitled “Heirs of the Deceased Filemon Manangan v. Hon. Quirino
A. Catral, etc.” The Petition sought to annul the Order of Judge Catral of 25
March 1983 denying the closure and termination of the Criminal Case.

On 28 May 1983, the then IAC, after quoting at length from the
Kapunan Decision and the Catral Order, dismissed the Petition (hereinafter, the
Aquino Decision),^[3]
holding, inter alia, that “whether or not its denial of the
motion to dismiss that case constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, was
already passed upon by this Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-14428 (Kapunan Decision),
hence, it is res adjudicata. It may not be litigated anew, no matter what form the action for that
purpose may take.”

On 28 June 1984, before respondent Court, petitioner-accused
filed an Omnibus Motion with Motion for New Trial, which was denied for lack of
merit in the Order of 19 November 1984. In the same Order, respondent Court ordered the case archived until such
time that the accused is brought to the Court.

On 19 June 1986, counsel for petitioner-accused filed a Motion to
Quash on the grounds that: “(1) the
court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused; and (2) the accused has been previously convicted or in
jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged.”

It was at that stage of the case below, without awaiting disposition
on the Motion to Quash, that the present Petition was instituted.

The obvious conclusion from the recital of facts given is that
the Petition is without merit. Petitioner-accused had a pending Motion to Quash before respondent Court
and should have awaited resolution thereon. He had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
and resort to this Petition is decidedly premature.

Contrary to petitioner’s pretensions, the Alias Warrant of Arrest
is valid. Petitioner had evaded arrest
by disappearing from the jurisdiction of respondent Court. Neither is there any indication in the records
that the property bond, filed by petitioner-accused in the Municipal Circuit
Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, had been accepted by respondent Court
and petitioner discharged on the basis thereof. The Alias Warrant is not “stale or functus officio,” as alleged. Unlike a search warrant, which is valid for only ten (10) days from date
(Rule 126, Sec. 9), a Warrant of Arrest remains valid until arrest is effected or the Warrant lifted. Respondent
Court, therefore, cannot be faulted with grave abuse of discretion for holding
that said Warrant is in full force and effect.

Although there may have been some initial confusion on the part
of respondent Court arising from the Kapunan Decision, that was timely
rectified. In the final analysis,
respondent Court has not made it appear that petitioner-accused has already
been arraigned and tried, let alone convicted. No jeopardy has attached, as alleged. Again, therefore, no grave abuse of
discretion can be attributed to respondent Court.

Petitioner’s argument in his Amended Petition and Second Amended
Petition that it is the Sandiganbayan that has exclusive jurisdiction over the
Criminal Case neither holds water considering that not only is he ineligible
for the position of Legal Officer I in the Bureau of Lands, Region II, for not
being a lawyer, but also because he was dismissed from the service on 27 March
1980 by the Director of Lands, who found him, with the approval of the Minister
of Natural Resources, guilty of extortion, impersonation and abandonment of
office (CA-GR No. 11588-SP, p. 2).

The foregoing conclusions could dispose of the case.

However, on 8 June 1989, the Solicitor General filed a
“Manifestation/Motion to Strike Out” the present petition for being fictitious
and that by reason thereof petitioner should be cited for contempt of
Court. The Solicitor General has also
prayed that he be excused from filing a Comment on petitioner’s Second Amended
Petition, which we resolve to grant.

The Solicitor General maintains that a re-examination of the
records in the Criminal Case shows that:

“a.    Filemon A. Manangan is only an alias of
Andres M. Culanag, the person charged in Criminal Case No. 639;

“b.    Filemon A. Manangan was a lawyer from San
Marcelino, Zambales, who died on September 29, 1971 in the vicinity of his
residence where he and his driver died on the spot; and

“c.    [Andres M. Culanag] knew the real Filemon
Manangan and knowing about the latter’s death, assumed the name, qualifications
and other personal circumstances of Filemon Manangan. By means thereof,
he was able to pass himself off as a lawyer and to actually practice law, using
even the Certificate of Admission to the Philippine Bar of Filemon Manangan
which states that he was admitted to the Bar on March 6, 1964. By this guise, [Andres M. Culanag] succeeded
in obtaining a position as Legal Officer I in the Bureau of Lands.”

In opposition, petitioner maintains that he is not a fictitious person, having
been born out of the lawful wedlock of Segundino Manangan and Felipa Asis; and
that assuming that there is sufficient basis to charge him for contempt, it
will no longer prosper on the ground of prescription.

Petitioner’s posturings are completely bereft of basis. As the Solicitor General had also disclosed
in the German Decision, petitioner [Andres Culanag] had, on 23 February 1977, filed Sp. Procs. No.
23 with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, San Jose City Branch, for
the change of his name from Andres Culanag to Filemon Manangan. In that petition, he claimed that his real
name is Andres Culanag; that his entire school records carry his name as
Filemon Manangan: and that he is the
same person as Andres Culanag, the
latter being his real name. The impersonation
was carried to the extreme when, in petitioner’s Manifestation, dated 10
February 1983, before respondent Court, his supposed heirs alleged that accused
had died before the filing of the Information on 29 September 1971, the exact
date of death of the real Filemon Manangan. More, petitioner also masquerades under the name of Atty. Benjamin M.
Facun in the several pleadings filed in connection with the Criminal Case.

In the German Decision, it was additionally pointed out that
petitioner had also committed impersonation when, representing himself as Atty.
Ross V. Pangilinan, he filed a petition with this Court praying that his right
to practice law be affirmed (Misc. Bar-I and Misc. Bar-2). In those cases, we ruled that petitioner
Filemon Manangan is “really Andres
Culanag, an impostor;” dismissed the petitions; and directed Andres Culanag to
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for filing the two false
petitions (In re: Andres Culanag,
September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 26). He
explained that “he thought this Court would not discover that he is a poseur,
for which reason he apologizes to the Court promising that he would not commit
the same act if he is excused and given another chance.” On 12 November 1971,
after finding his explanation unsatisfactory, we adjudged him guilty of
indirect contempt of Court under Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court^[4] and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for
six (6) months.

Parenthetically, we also take judicial notice of Bar Matter No.
190, entitled “In Re Andres Culanag alias Atty. Ross V. Pangilinan” and Bar
Matter No. 206, entitled “Eriberto H. Decena vs. Andres Culanag” wherein, on 9
October 1984, this Court Resolved “to direct that petitioner be subjected to
mental examination by a doctor from the National Mental Hospital” after noting
that petitioner was suffering from some kind of mental alienation. This mitigates somewhat petitioner’s present
liability for contempt.

It is the height of chicanery, indeed, that despite the foregoing
antecedents, petitioner still has the gall to claim that he is, in truth and in
fact, Filemon Manangan. The evidence on
hand, without need for more, and with petitioner having been sufficiently heard, amply establishes
that petitioner Filemon Manangan, is an impostor. He is guilty of continued fraudulent misrepresentation and highly improper conduct tending directly to
impede, obstruct, degrade, and make a mockery of the administration of justice
(Rule 71, Sec. 3 [d]).

While it may be that some pronouncements in the pertinent
decisions allude to Filemon Manangan and that Andres Culanag is just an alias
of Filemon Manangan, those statements actually refer to the person of Andres
Culanag and not to the real Filemon Manangan, long since dead.

The action for contempt has not prescribed since it is apparent
that the contumacious acts continue to this day.

WHEREFORE, (1) the Petition, Amended Petition, and the
Second Amended Petition are hereby dismissed for utter lack of merit; (2)
petitioner is adjudged in contempt of Court, severely censured, and sentenced
to suffer three (3) months imprisonment, the same to be served at the
Provincial Jail of Nueva Vizcaya to ensure his appearance during the trial of
the subject criminal case; (3) respondent Court is hereby directed to retrieve
Criminal Case No. 639 from its archives and to proceed to its determination
with deliberate dispatch; (4) all Courts are directed not to recognize any
person representing himself as Filemon Manangan, Atty. Filemon Manangan, or
Atty. Benjamin M. Facun; and (5) petitioner’s real name is declared to be
Andres Culanag.

Treble costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.

Paras, J., took no part.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Milagros A. German and concurred in by Justices Emilio A.
Gancayco and Lino M. Patajo.

^[2]
Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, ponente, with Justices B. S. dela Fuente
and Edgardo L. Paras, concurring.

^[3]
Per Justice Carolina C. Grino-Aquino, concurred in by Justices Nestor B.
Alampay and Reynato S. Puno.

^[4]
“(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such
without authority; x x x “