Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Jimenez vs. Sorongon, et al.

678 SCRA 151

December 5, 2012

Jimenez(Petitioner) is the president of Unlad Shipping and Management Corporation a local manning agency, while
Antzoulatos, Alamil, Gaza and Avgoustis are the respondents herein and are some of the listed incorporators of Tsakos
Maritime Services Inc, a local manning agency. In Aug. 19, 2003, Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the office of the
prosecutor of Mandaluyong city against the respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. Respondents
Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their joint counter-affidavit and denying the complaint. Avgoustis and Alamil did not submit any
counter affidavit. An Information for the said crime was filed before the RTC-Mandaluyong.
On Dec. 4, 2004, the prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information and respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their
comment to the opposition; however, the judge denied the motion as it found existence of probable cause and issued warrants
against the respondents. Respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause to defer the
enforcement of the warrants or arrest. Petitioner filed his opposition with the motion to expunge, contending that Alamil being a
fugitive from justice had no standing to seek any relief and that the RTC found probable cause. Respondent filed a motion for
inhibition against Judge Umali for being biased or partial. The said judge voluntarily inhibit herself and the case was re-raffled
to Judge Sorongon.
On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing the existence of probable cause to prosecute the
respondents. On April 26, 2006, Alamil moved to expunge the motion for being prohibited pleading since the motion did not
have any conformity from the city prosecutor. In its May 10, 2006 order, the RTC denied the petitioners motion for
reconsideration, finding that the petitioner merely reiterated arguments in issues that had been finally decided.
On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the petitioners notice of appeal since the public prosecutor did not
authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case. On June 27, 2006, the petitioner filed his comment to
the motion to expunge, claiming that, as the offended party, he has the right to appeal the RTC order dismissing the case; the
respondents fraudulent acts in forming TMSI greatly prejudiced him.
(1) WON the Petitioner has the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the case
No. It is well settled that the real party in interest is the People of the Philippines and is represented by the
prosecutors. All criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and before this Court, the Office of the
Solicitor General is the appellate counsel of the People; The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the
Office of the Solicitor General can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Appeals or in the
Supreme Court.
(2) WON Alamil is a fugitive justice and therefore has no right to seek any relief from the RTC?
NO. Respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to the RTCs jurisdiction.

As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdiction of one's
person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC seeking the dismissal of the criminal case, respondent Alamil
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs
other than an application for bail.