Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

BARITUA and JB Lines, Inc. vs MERCADER G.R.

• RTC No. 136048


ruled in favor of Rs; CA affirmed except as for lost earnings (no
January 23, 2001 ruling on BOP)
Panganiban., J
Bill of Particulars
SUMMARY: Petitioner’s Argument:
R filed a case against P. P filed Mtd and/or Bill of Particulars. However, P had already filed an P requested
• Answer beforefor BOP due to the alleged incomplete plea of Rs:
it requested for the BOP. SC ruled that Ps cannot now request for BOP because they filed 11 days pastP12,000.00
o the -- representing the death compensation;
o
deadline set by the Court. Also, the filed a motion for BOP after they have filed the Answer, therefore, they An amount to be proven in court, representing actual
cannot now do so. damages;
o P1,660,000.00 or more as may be proven during the trial, by
DOCTRINE: way of loss of earnings;
Section 1, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, provides: o An amount to be proven in court as and by way of funeral
expenses;
Section 1. When applied for; purpose. -- Before responding to a pleading, a party may move foroa more An amount to be proven during the trial, representing moral
definite statement or for a bill of particulars … damages;
o An amount to be determined by this Honorable Court,
representing exemplary damages;
NATURE: Petition for review under Rule 45 o An amount equivalent to 25% of whatever amount the
plaintiffs would be able to collect from the defendant but in
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: no case less than P50,000.00 plus an additional amount of
Br. 21 of RTC Northern Samar ruled in favor of Respondents and ordered the P1,000.00 per hearing as and by way of Attorneys fees;
Petitioners to pay. This was modified by CA as to the loss of earnings but
affirmed on all other aspects. ISSUE(S):
W/N court acquired jurisdiction despite non-payment of docket fees - YES
FACTS: W/N CA GAD when it allowed to pass sub silencio the RTC’s failure to rule of
• R filed a complaint originally against P-Baritua for the death of her P’s bill of particulars - NO
husband, Dominador Mercader, who was a passenger in said bus.
• P filed MtD and/or Bill of Particulars (BOP) because (1) R failed to HELD:
implead Baritua as an indispensable party and (2) Cause of action is Re: Jurisdiction
against a wrong and non-existent party. The Manchester ruling, which became final in 1987, has no retroactive
• As a result of this, R filed an amended complaint which alleged: application and cannot be invoked in the subject Complaint filed in 1984. The
o That Dominador is engaged in the buying and selling of goods Court explicitly declared in that case:
which he buys in Manila and sells in Northern Samar
o That he boarded said bus in its Manila station but was not able To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers
to reach his destination because the bus fell into a river, which and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being
caused his death prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
• P denied specifically the allegations and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case.
o R has not shown the passenger freight-ticket Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted
o P has no Manila station, it only has a Pasay station nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. (But this does
o That Ps had no knowledge that the bridge that the bus will not apply)
traverse was in such dilapidated condition that it will collapse;
such was caused by the negligence of the local officials. Re: Bill of Particulars

Page 1 of 8
P’s counsel manifested in open court his desire to file a motion for a bill of OSCAR REYES v. RTC OF MAKATI GR No. 165744
particulars. The RTC gave him ten days from March 12, 1985 within which to August 11, 2008 Brion, J.
do so. He, however, filed the aforesaid motion only on April 2, 1985 or eleven Digest by: Fernandez
days past the deadline set by the trial court. Moreover, such motion was TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Bill of Particulars (Rule 12)
already moot and academic because, prior to its filing, petitioners had already SUMMARY: Zenith and Rodrigo filed a derivative suit against Oscar, alleging
filed their answer and several other pleadings to the amended Complaint. that the latter fraudulently appropriated for himself their mother’s shareholdings
Section 1, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, provides: in the corporation. Oscar filed a motion to declare the complaint as a
harassment suit since it partakes of the nature of a petition for settlement of the
Section 1. When applied for; purpose. -- Before responding to a pleading, a estate of Anastacia. RTC denied, but sustained that only the action for
party may move for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars … accounting of corporate assets and funds will be entertained. Oscar filed a Rule
65 before the CA, which affirmed the RTC. SC granted his petition holding that
the complaint failed to aver with particularity the facts allegedly constituting
fraud, and that such defect cannot be cured by a bill of particulars, being one
of the prohibited pleadings in an intracorporate dispute.
DOCTRINE: In ordinary cases, the failure to specifically allege the fraudulent
acts does not constitute a ground for dismissal since such defect can be cured
by a bill of particulars; but it is different in intra-corporate controversies since
under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies, a bill of
particulars is a prohibited pleading.

PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to set aside the decision
of the CA which affirmed the order of the RTC which denied the motion to
declare complaint as nuisance or harassment complaint filed by petitioner.

FACTS:
Spouses Pedro and Anastacia Reyes, together with 2 of their 4 children, Oscar
and Rodrigo, owned shares of stock of Zenith Insurance Co., which was
established by their family. When Pedro died, his estate was judicially
partitioned among his heirs. As for Anastacia, however, no such settlement of
her estate appeared to have been made. As of 1990, Anastacia owned 136,598
shares, Oscar owned 8,715,637 shares, and Rodrigo owned 4,250 shares in
Zenith.

In 2000, Zenith and Rodrigo filed a derivative suit with the SEC against Oscar
to obtain an accounting of the corporate assets which were in the control and
custody of Oscar, the President; and to determine the shares of stock of the
deceased Pedro and Anastacia, which were arbitrarily and fraudulently
appropriated by Oscar for himself.

Page 2 of 8
Oscar denied that he illegally obtained the shares of Anastacia, asserting that facts to which the allegations of fraud refer, do not sufficiently state a cause of
he bought said shares with his own funds from the unissued stocks of Zenith, action. The late Justice Feria declared that fraud and mistake are required to be
that the suit has not complied with the requirements of a derivative suit, and averred with particularity in order to enable the opposing party to controvert
that the SEC had no jurisdiction over the complaint since it pertains to the the particular facts allegedly constituting such fraud or mistake.
settlement of the estate of Anastacia. Tested against these standards, the Court found that the charges of fraud against
Oscar were not properly supported by the required factual allegations. The
The records of the case were then transferred to RTC Makati Br. 142, pursuant allegations were mere conclusions of law, not statements of ultimate facts: how
to RA 8799 which transferred the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC and why the alleged appropriation of shares can be characterized as “illegal
over intracorporate disputes over to the RTC designated as a special and fraudulent” were not explained nor elaborated on.
commercial court. To fall within the special commercial court’s jurisdiction, there must be
sufficient nexus showing that the corporation’s nature, structure or powers
Oscar then filed a motion to declare the complaint as Nuisance or Harassment were used to facilitate the fraudulent device or scheme. Contrary to this
Suit since it partakes of the nature of a petition for the settlement of the estate concept, the complaint presented a reverse situation. No corporate power or
of Anastacia. RTC denied, but sustained that only the action for the accounting office was alleged to have facilitated the transfer of the shares; rather, Oscar, as
of corporate assets and funds will be entertained. an individual and without reference to his corporate personality, was alleged to
have transferred the shares of Anastacia to his name, allowing him to become
Oscar filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, the majority and controlling stockholder of Zenith, and eventually, the
praying that the RTC be prohibited from continuing with the proceedings. CA corporation’s President.
affirmed the RTC. MR denied. In ordinary cases, the failure to specifically allege the fraudulent acts does not
constitute a ground for dismissal since such defect can be cured by a bill of
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT(S): RTC acting as a special commercial court has particulars; but it is different in intra-corporate controversies since under the
no jurisdiction over the complaint since it is in the nature of a petition for Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies, a bill of
settlement of estate. particulars is a prohibited pleading. It is essential, therefore, for the complaint
to show on its face what are claimed to be the fraudulent corporate acts if the
ISSUE(S): — complainant wishes to invoke the court’s special commercial jurisdiction.
WoN charges of fraud were properly supported by the required factual The Court noted that Rodrigo had twice been given the opportunity to study
allegations – N the propriety of amending or withdrawing the complaint but he consistently
WoN the defect can be cured by a bill of particulars - N refused. Since the court is limited to the review of the allegations of the
complaint in resolving issues of jurisdiction, the court cannot affirm the RTC’s
HELD: assumption of jurisdiction since the complaint failed to specifically allege the
FRAUDULENT DEVICES AND SCHEMES corporate fraud that will call for the exercise of its special commercial
The allegations set forth in Rodrigo’s complaint principally invoke Sec. 5 (a) jurisdiction.
and (b) as basis for the exercise of the RTC’s special court jurisdiction.
The rule is that a complaint must contain a plain, concise and direct statement INTRACORPORATE CONTROVERSY
of the plaintiff’s CoA and must specify the relief sought. Sec. 5, Rule 8 states To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, two
that all averments of fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. This elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the
rule finds specific application to Sec. 5(a) of PD 902-A, which speaks of nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
corporate devices or schemes that amount to fraud or misrepresentation The Court found that, in so far as the subject shares of stock are concerned (i.e.
detrimental to the public and/or to the stockholders. Anastacia’s shares), Rodrigo cannot be considered a stockholder of Zenith.
Allegations of deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation and While the children acquired a legal title to the estate of Anastacia upon her
threats are largely conclusions of law that, without supporting statements of the death, and are deemed co-owners thereof, such status as co-owners does not

Page 3 of 8
immediately and necessarily make them stockholders of the corporation.
Unless and until the transfer is registered in the books of the corporation, such REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GR No. 148154
transferee-heir cannot be considered a stockholder entitled to recognition as SANDIGANBAYAN and FERDINAND
such both by the corporation and by third parties. Consequently, no MARCOS JR.
intracorporate relationship exists that would serve as basis to bring the case Dec. 17 2007 Quisumbing, J.
within the special commercial court’s jurisdiction. Digest By: Lee
As regards the nature of the case, the Court concluded that, more than anything TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Bill of Particulars
else, the complaint is about the protection and enforcement of successional SUMMARY:
rights. The Court noted that the complaint contained no sufficient allegation On 1987, the PCGG filed a Complaint against the Marcoses and Ramon Cruz
that justified the need for an accounting other than to determine the extent of for ill-gotten wealth and prayed for its reconveyance and for damages. This
Anastacia’s shareholdings for purposes of distribution. Rodrigo, in filing the complaint was later expanded on 1988. The Marcoses were served with
complaint, is enforcing his rights as a co-heir and not as a stockholder of summonses in Hawaii, but they failed to respond; thus, they were declared in
Zenith. What Rodrigo clearly aims to accomplish is the distribution of default. On 1995, Mrs. Marcos filed her Answer. On 1999, respondent as
Anastacia’s shareholdings without prior settlement of her estate – an objective executor of the estate of former Pres. Marcos, filed a Motion for Leave to File
that cannot be done. The RTC of Makati, acting as a special commercial court, Responsive Pleading. This was opposed by PCGG, but was granted by the anti-
has no jurisdiction to settle, partition, and distribute the estate of a deceased. graft court. However, after 3 Motions for Extension, instead of filing an Answer,
Such matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. the respondent filed for a Motion for Bill of Particulars.
DOCTRINE:
DERIVATIVE SUIT The grant of a motion to file a responsive pleading and a Bill of Particulars has
The allegations of the present complaint do not amount to a derivative suit. the effect of lifting the default order.
First, Rodrigo is not a shareholder with respect to the shareholdings originally Default orders are frowned upon, and the SC has been advising the lower
belonging to Anastacia. Second, he failed to exhaust his remedies within the courts to be liberal in setting aside default orders to give both parties every
corporation. Lastly, no injury was done to the corporation due to Oscar’s acts. chance to present their case fairly without resort to technicality. As understood
If he indeed illegally or fraudulently transferred Anastacia’s shares in his own under Sec. 1 of Rule 12, a Motion for a Bill of Particulars must be filed within
name, the damage is not to the corporation but to his co-heirs. the reglementary period for the filing of a responsive pleading to the pleading
In summary, whether as an individual or as a derivative suit, the RTC sitting as sought to be clarified.
special commercial court has no jurisdiction to hear Rodrigo’s complaint since
what is involved is the determination and distribution of successional rights to FACTS:
the shareholdings of Anastacia Reyes. Rodrigo’s proper remedy, under the Jul. 21, 1987: The PCGG, through the OSG, filed before the anti-graft court, a
circumstances, is to institute a special proceeding for the settlement of the Complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and damages alleging
estate of the deceased Anastacia Reyes, a move that is not foreclosed by the that former Pres. Marcos, former first lady Imelda Marcos, and Cruz (alleged
dismissal of his present complaint. business crony of the Marcoses) stole public assets and invested them in
different institutions.
Sept. 18, 1987: Cruz filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and for a Bill of
Particulars.
Apr. 18, 1988: The anti-graft court ordered alias summonses be served on the
Marcoses in Hawaii, admitted the PCGG’s Expanded Complaint.
Jul. 28, 1988: The anti-graft court denied Cruz’s Omnibus Motion, stating that
the expanded complaint sufficiently states causes of action and that matters
alleged are specific enough to allow Cruz to prepare a responsive pleading.
Sept. 15, 1988: Cruz filed his Answer ad Cautelam.
Page 4 of 8
Nov. 10, 1988: Alias summonses were served on the Marcoses in Hawaii. It is misleading for the Government to argue that the default order against his
Apr. 6, 1989: Marcoses failed to file an Answer and were declared in default father stands because the May 28, 1999 Resolution effectively lifted it;
Sept. 29, 1989: Former Pres. Marcos died, and was substituted by Mrs. Marcos otherwise, he would not have been called by the Court to appear before it and
and their three children upon motion of PCGG. allowed to file a responsive pleading.
Jul. 13, 1992: Motion to Set Aside Order of Default filed by Mrs. Marcos – The Motion for Bill of Particulars is not dilatory as it is the petitioner’s
granted. continued refusal to submit of Bill of Particulars which causes the delay. The
Sept. 6, 1995: Mrs. Marcos filed her Answer respondent’s draft Answer turned out “not as intelligent” because of the
Jan. 11, 1999: Pre-trial briefs filed by Cruz, PCGG, and Mrs. Marcos. vagueness of the allegations.
Mar. 16, 1999: Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Responsive
Pleading. PCGG opposed on the ground that there is no Motion to Set Aside ISSUE(S):
Default Order. WON the filing and granting of a Motion for Bill of Particulars for the estate of
May 28, 1999: Court granted respondent’s Motion a defaulting and deceased defendant is proper / YES.
Jul. 16, 1999: After 3 Motions for Extension, the respondent filed a Motion for
Bill of Particulars. PCGG opposed arguing that the requested particulars were HELD:
evidentiary matters; and that the motion was dilatory. (Note that the Complaint MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE ROC
was filed way back in 1988 – now Marcos is asking for a BOP.) Respondent’s Under the Rule 9 Sec. 3, a defending party may be declared in default, upon
Motion was allowed. motion and notice, for failure to file an Answer within the allowable period. As
Petitioner filed an MR, but it was denied. Petitioner thus filed a special civil a result, the defaulting cannot take part in the trial albeit he is entitled to notice
action for certiorari before the SC. of subsequent proceedings. The remedies against a default order are: (1)
Motion to Set Aside Order of Default at any time after discovery thereof and
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT(S): before judgment on the ground that defendant’s failure to file an Answer was
Since the default order against former Pres. Marcos has not been lifted by any due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect and that the defendant
court order, respondent cannot file a Motion for Bill of Particulars. has a meritorious defense; (2) a Motion for New Trial within 15 days from
Respondent was granted leave to file an Answer to the expanded complaint, receipt of judgment by default, if judgment had already been rendered before
not a Motion for Bill of Particulars. Respondent impliedly admitted that the the defendant discovered the default, but before the judgment became final
Complaint sufficiently averred factual matters with definiteness to enable him and executory; (3) an Appeal within 15 days from receipt of judgment by
to properly prepare a responsive pleading because he was able to prepare a default; (4) a Petition for Relief from Judgment within 60 days from notice of
draft Answer, as stated in his second and third MOTEXes. The factual matters in judgment and within 6 months from entry thereof; and (5) a Petition for
the expanded complaint are sufficient and clear as Mrs. Marcos and Cruz had Certiorari in exceptional circumstances. In this case, former Pres. Marcos was
already filed their respective Answers. declared in default for failure to file an Answer. He died in Hawaii while this
If the assailed Resolutions are enforced, the People will suffer irreparable case was pending. His representatives failed to file a Motion to Lift the Order of
damage because petitioner will be forced to prematurely divulge evidentiary Default. Nevertheless, respondent, as executor of his father’s estate, filed a
matters, which is not a function of a bill of particulars. Motion for Leave to File a Responsive Pleading, 3 MOTEXes to file an Answer,
and a Motion for Bill of Particulars all of which were granted.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT(S): Given the existence of the default order then, what is the legal effect of
This Court had compelled petitioner in several ill-gotten wealth cases involving granting the aforesaid Motions? The effect is that the default order is deemed
the same issues and parties to comply with the motions for Bill of Particulars lifted. While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the court to
filed by other defendants on the ground that most, if not all, of the allegation in lift the default order because there was no motion to that effect, the anti-graft
the similarly worded complaints for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth were court’s act of granting respondent the opportunity to file a responsive pleading
too vague and general to enable the defendants to intelligently parry them. meant the lifting of the default order on terms the court deemed proper in the
interest of justice. It was the operative act of lifting the default order and

Page 5 of 8
thereby reinstating the position of the original defendant whom respondent is
representing, founded on the court’s discretionary power to set aside orders of Estandarte v. People of the Philippines GR No. 156851-55
default. Feb. 18, 2008 Austria-Martinez, J.
A Motion to Lift a Default Order requires no hearing; it only needs to be under Digest by: Lopez
oath and accompanied by an affidavit of merits showing a meritorious defense. TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Bill of Particulars (Rule 12)
The act of the court in entertaining the motions to file a responsive pleading SUMMARY: Two complaints were filed against Estandarte for irregularities with
during the pre-trial stage effectively meant that the respondent has acquired a the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaints to
locus standi in this case. That he filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars instead of City Prosec for PI who served her a subpoena and required her to submit a
an Answer is not an issue because he, as a party-defendant representing the counter-affidavit. Estandarte filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars instead of a
estate, is allowed to do so under the ROC to be able to file an intelligent counter-aff. The City Prosec issued an order with an attached Bill of Particulars,
Answer. Indeed the failure to file a Motion to Lift a Default Order is not charging her with violations of PD 1445. Estandarte then filed her counter-aff
procedurally fatal. limiting herself to the charges in the BoP. The Omb filed 5 Informations against
her charging her with violations of RA 3019. Estandarte filed a Motion for
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS IS NOT DILATORY AND BEREFT OF Reinvestigation which was denied. She filed an MR, stating that her due
BASIS process rights were violated and that the Omb was not allowed to go beyond
Default orders are frowned upon, and the SC has been advising the lower the charges in the Bill of Particulars. MR was denied so she filed a Pet for Rev
courts to be liberal in setting aside default orders to give both parties every on Cert (R45) directly with the SC. SC held that Omb was not bound by the
chance to present their case fairly without resort to technicality. As understood erroneous grant of BoP because it is a prohibited motion under the Rules of
under Rule 12 Sec. 1, a Motion for a Bill of Particulars must be filed within the Procedure of the Office of the Omb. However, while BoP is not allowed and
reglementary period for the filing of a responsive pleading to the pleading should not be the basis for determining what specific criminal charges should
sought to be clarified. This contemplates pleadings which are required by the be filed against Estandarte, she must still be accorded her basic rights to due
Rules to be answered under pain of procedural sanctions, such as default or process in the conduct of PI.
implied admission of facts not responded to. The fact that former Pres. Marcos
was in exile when he was declared in default, and that the later died still in DOCTRINE: BoP is a prohibited motion before the Office of the Ombudsman
exile, makes the belated filing of his Answer in this case understandably and an erroneous grant thereof does not bind the Ombudsman to the charges
excusable. stated therein. (implied because this was never stated explicitly)
In his Motion for Bill of Particulars, respondent wanted clarification on the
specific nature, manner, and extent of participation of his father in the PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule
acquisition of assets under Cruz. 45 to reverse and set aside RTC order denying Petitioner’s Motion for
The 1991 Virata-Mapa Doctrine (Virata v. Sandiganbayan, 1991) prescribes a Reinvestigation and MR
Motion for a Bill of Particulars, not a Motion to Dismiss, as the remedy for
perceived ambiguity or vagueness of a complaint for the recovery of ill-gotten FACTS:
wealth. While the allegations as to the alleged specific acts of Cruz were clear, • Petitioner Heide Estandarte – principal of Ramon Torres National High
they were vague as to the acts of the Marcos couple who were in alleged School (RTNHS)
unlawful concert with the former. There was no factual allegation in the • 1998 – group of concerned RTNHS teachers composed of the Faculty
original and expanded Complaints on the collaboration of former Pres. Marcos and Personnel Club Officers and department heads (private
and Cruz. That the late president’s co-defendants were able to file their complainants), sent an undated letter to the Schools Division of Bago
respective Answers does not necessarily mean that his estate’s executor will be City with an attached of 15 irregularities.
able to file an equally intelligent Answer.
• Two complaints were filed by private complainants with the Office of
the Ombudsman-Visayas (Omb-Vis)

Page 6 of 8
• Omb-Vis forwarded complaint to Office of the City Prosecutor for o For double charging of the expenses amounting to
preliminary investigation. City Prosecutor then served Estandarte with P45,000.00 incurred in the repairs of the Home Economics
a subpoena and required her to submit a counter-affidavit. Building
• Instead of a counter-aff, Estandarte filed with the City Prosec a Motion • Estandarte filed a Motion for Reinvestigation on the ground that she
for Bill of Particulars and Motion for Extension of Time to File Counter- cannot allegedly be charged with violation of Sec. 68 and 69 since she
Aff. was not a collecting officer and she cannot be charged under Sec. 3(e)
o In the Motion for Bill of Particulars, Estandarte alleged that of R.A. No. 3019, as the acts which she was charged with, did not
there were no specific criminal charges that were stated in the constitute manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable
subpoenas. Thus, she cannot intelligently prepare her counter- negligence
affidavit
• City Prosec issued an Order, attaching a Bill of Particulars stating: RTC:
o “Complainants are charging respondent for violation of Sec. • Denied the Motion for Reinvestigation because Estandarte’s claim that
68 and 691 of PD 1445”; and her acts do not constitute manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
o “Private complainants adopt the investigation report of the grossly inexcusable negligence and is evidentiary in nature, and can
provincial [sic] Auditor on [sic] complaint No. 23 and 25 only be appreciated after a full-blown trial.
which states: The principal Ms. Estandarte accepted cash and • Estandarte filed MR, stating that:
in kind donations without being properly channeled and o When the 5 Informations for the violation of Sec 3(e) of R.A.
accounted first by the property custodian and the cash No. 3019 were filed by the Omb-Vis, her right to due process
without first deposited in the Trust Fund.” was violated; and that the Omb-Vis went beyond the Bill of
• Estandarte filed her counter-aff limiting herself to the charges stated in Particulars.
the Bill of Particulars. • RTC Denied MR
• Omb-Vis found sufficient grounds to hold Estandarte liable for 5 • From the RTC, Estandarte went straight to SC via petition for review on
counts of violations of Sec 3 (e) of RA 30192 and filed 5 Informations certiorari under Rule 45 on the basis of Sec. 2(c), Rule 41 of the RoC,
charging her: which provides that in all cases where only questions of law are
o For receiving cash donations from private individuals and raised, the appeal from a decision or final order of the RTC shall be to
establishments in the total amount P163,400.00; SC by a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
o For collecting contributions or allowing the collection of
contributions in the amount of P10.00 from the enrollees of PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
the school without authority of law; • Omb-Vis should have limited the charges filed against her to the
o For purchasing guns using the students Trust Fund depriving crimes mentioned in the Bill of Particulars, and that the filing of the
the Security Guard of the school of the use of said guns. Informations charging her with crimes different from those specified in
o For double charging of the expenses of P1,500.00 incurred the Bill of Particulars violates her right to due process
for the video coverage of the coronation night • City Prosec was deputized by Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary
investigation. Omb is bound by the act of granting the Bill of
Particulars because Prosec’s actions is effectively Omb’s actions.
• No criminal charges were stated in the subpoenas served on her so she
1 Section 68. Issuance of Official receipt and Section 69. Deposit of moneys in the treasury was not properly informed of the nature of the crime which she was
2Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any supposed to answer in her counter-affidavit
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial • In the Motion for Bill of Particulars, she declared that she was served
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision with subpoena together with the documents attached therein
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
Page 7 of 8
OSG’s ARGUMENT: RE: DUE PROCESS
• Bill of particulars is not allowed by AO 7 (Rules of Procedure in the • In a preliminary investigation (Sec 3, Rule 112 RoC) basic due process
Office of the Ombudsman) so the Omb cannot be bound by the Bill of rights, such as the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint, the
Particulars submitted by private complainants. affidavits, and other supporting documents, and the right to submit
counter-affidavits are guaranteed
ISSUE(S): — • Court does not find the subpoenas and the alleged documents served
W/N the Ombudsman is bound by the Bill of Particulars? NO. on her.
W/N Estandarte was deprived of due process? YES. o Without the subpoenas and the documents attached to the
W/N RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion when in denying the Motion for subpoenas, it could not be intelligently determined whether
Reinvestigation? NO. she was fully apprised of the acts imputed to her and whether
she was given the opportunity to submit an appropriate
HELD: counter-affidavit to the charges and whether the charges
RE: Petition for Review on Certiorari against her were based on the same acts complained of and
• Orders are obviously interlocutory orders, the proper recourse of stated in the subpoena and the attached documents.
petitioner should have been by way of a petition for certiorari as • It is an elementary rule that the complaint should specifically allege
prescribed in Sec 1, Rule 41 of RoC, which specifically allows the the criminal acts complained of to enable the accused to prepare his
aggrieved party to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 answer or counter-affidavit accurately and intelligently.
• In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, (proceeding from the time- • In resolving the question whether petitioner was denied due process,
honored principle that rules of procedure should promote, not defeat Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that official duties
substantial justice) Court shall treat the petition as a petition for have been regularly performed.
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. o RTC should have required the petitioner to submit the
subpoenas and the attached documents served on her to
RE: BILL OF PARTICULARS examine the same and resolve whether the petitioner’s right
• The Omb cannot be bound by the act of the Prosecutor who acted to be informed was violated.
contrary to the express mandate of AO 7, Sec. 4 (d)3 • A preliminary investigation is a judicial proceeding wherein the
• Estandarte has no basis for insisting that Omb must be bound by the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts
erroneous act of the City Prosecutor in granting petitioners Motion for as a quasi-judicial officer
Bill of Particulars. • A PI is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial
• Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to reverse or nullify the court but it is not a casual affair. It is in effect a realistic judicial
acts of the prosecutor pursuant to its power of control and supervision appraisal of the merits of the case.
over deputized prosecutors. • In order to satisfy the due process clause, it is not enough that the
• While the Bill of Particulars is not allowed under the Rules of preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and should not be the a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. PI is part of the
basis for determining what specific criminal charges should be filed guarantee of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who
against Estandarte, she must still be accorded her basic rights to due live in our country.
process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
PETITION PARTIALLY GRANTED. RTC ORDERS SET ASIDE. CASE
REMANDED.


3xxx d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither
may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. xxx
Page 8 of 8