Banal vs. Tadeo,Jr.

G.R. No. 78911-25 December 11, 1987

Petitioner: CHARMINA B. BANAL
Respondents: THE HON. TOMAS V. TADEO, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC-
Quezon City, Branch 105 and Rosario Claudia
Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to review and set aside the orders of
the respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City dated (1) 8
January 1987 which rejected the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as
private prosecutor in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-40909 to Q-40913 where
respondent Rosario Claudio is the accused for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22; and (2) 31 March 1987 which denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of the order dated 8 January 1987; and for mandamus to
allow Atty. Bustos to enter his appearance as private prosecutor in the
aforestated criminal cases.

Fifteen (15) separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or

the Bouncing Checks Law, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 40909-40913,
were filed against respondent Claudio before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City and originally assigned to Branch 84.

On January 8, 1987, the respondent court issued an order rejecting the

appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground
that the charge is for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which does not
provide for any civil liability or indemnity and hence, "it is not a crime
against property but public order."

The petitioner, through counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the

order dated 8 January 1987 on March 10, 1987.

In an order dated 31 March 1987, the respondent court denied petitioner's

motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of
discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction in rejecting the appearance of a
private prosecutor.

Ruling: Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides:Every person who, contrary
to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.

Not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief as a member of
the public which the law seeks to protect. She was assured that the checks
were good when she parted with money, property or services. She suffered
with the State when the checks bounced.
The petitioner's intervention in the prosecution of Criminal Cases 40909 to
40913 is justified not only for the protection of her interests but also in the
interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice mandated by
the Constitution (Section 16, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of 1987).

WHEREFORE the petition is hereby GRANTED. The respondent court is

ordered to permit the intervention of a private prosecutor in behalf of
petitioner Charmina B. Banal, in the prosecution of the civil aspect of
Criminal Cases Nos. 40909 to 40913.
Lichauco & Co vs Director of Agriculture
Petitioner: LICHAUCO & COMPANY, INC.
Respondents: SILVERIO APOSTOL, as Director of Agriculture, and
RAFAEL CORPUS, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ponente: STREET, J.:

Facts: This is an original petition for the writs of mandamus and injunction,
filed in this court by Lichauco & Company against the respondents. The
Attorney-General presented a return, in the nature of a demurrer, in
respondents’ behalf.

Petitioner is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippine

Islands and that it has been engaged for several years in the business of
importing carabao and other draft animals into the Philippine Islands and
that it is now desirous of importing from Pnom-Pehn, in French Indo-China, a
shipment of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum but
that the respondent Director of Agriculture refuses to admit said cattle,
except upon the condition, stated in Administrative Order No. 21 of the
Bureau of Agriculture, that said cattle shall have been immunized from
rinderpest before embarcation at Pnom-Pehn.

The petitioner asserts that under the first proviso to section 1762 of the
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3052 of the Philippine
Legislature, it has "an absolute and unrestricted right to import carabao and
other draft animals and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum from
Pnom-Pehn, Indo-China, into the Philippine Islands" and that the respondents
have no authority to impose upon the petitioner the restriction referred to
above, requiring the immunization of the cattle before shipment.

The respondents, on the other hand, rely upon section 1770 of the
Administrative Code and upon Administrative Order No. 21 of the Bureau of
Agriculture, promulgated on July 29, 1922, by the Director of Agriculture, in
relation with Department Order No. 6, promulgated on July 28, 1922, by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as supplying authority for
the action taken.

Issue: Whether or Not section 1770 has been repealed by implication, in so

far as it relates to draft animals and bovine cattle for the manufacture of
serum.

Ruling: We are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is

untenable, for the reason that section 1762, as amended, is obviously of a
general nature, while section 1770 deals with a particular contingency not
made the subject of legislation in section 1762. Section 1770 is therefore not
to be considered as inconsistent with section 1762, as amended; on the
other hand, it must be treated as a special qualification of section 1762.
The prior immunization of the cattle is made a condition precedent to the
right to bring them in; as much as to say, that only animals conforming to
the required type will be admitted.

Upon the whole we are of the opinion that the petition does not show
sufficient ground for granting the writs of mandamus and injunction. The
demurrer interposed thereto by the respondents in their return to the order
to show cause, dated October 7, 1922, is therefore sustained; and unless
within five days after notification hereof the petitioner shall so amend his
petition as to show a sufficient cause of action, an order absolute will be
entered, dismissing the same, with costs.