Lim vs. Lim

A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allows the belated submission of judicial affidavits without a valid reason, in blatant disregard of the mandatory five-day pre-trial submission requirement under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), and certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail such interlocutory orders.

Ronald Geralino M. Lim filed a complaint for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City. The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information charging Edwin with grave threats for allegedly uttering threatening words ("Pus-on ko ulo mo!" and "Patyon ta ikaw") against Ronald on November 11, 2012. After Edwin pleaded not guilty, the case underwent multiple pre-trial resets due to various delays including the parties' failure to reach a settlement, the absence of Ronald and his counsel, and the prosecution's request for additional time to submit judicial affidavits.

• Ronald Geralino M. Lim filed a complaint for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim for allegedly uttering threatening words ("Pus-on ko ulo mo!" and "Patyon ta ikaw") on November 11, 2012 in Iloilo City.
• The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information for grave threats before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Iloilo City.
• Edwin pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
• The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center but mediation failed, prompting the case's return to the court.
• The pre-trial conference was originally scheduled on August 12, 2013, but was reset to September 5, 2013 due to the absence of Ronald and his counsel.
• The pre-trial was again reset to October 17, 2013 after the defense counsel filed a motion for time to submit a counter-affidavit.
• On October 17, 2013, the defense counsel moved to reset the hearing to 10:00 a.m., but due to the unavailability of the private prosecutor and the prosecution's need to submit judicial affidavits, pre-trial was reset to November 21, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
• During the November 21, 2013 pre-trial, the prosecution moved to be allowed to submit the Judicial Affidavits of Ronald and their witnesses later that day, explaining that while they had completed the affidavits earlier, they were unable to submit them "for whatever reason."
• Despite the defense counsel's opposition, the MTCC granted the motion and gave the prosecution until 5:00 p.m. that day to submit the judicial affidavits.
• Edwin filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the prosecution waived its right to submit judicial affidavits by failing to file them at least five days before pre-trial as required by the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
• The MTCC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in its December 20, 2013 Order, reasoning that since it had already received the affidavits and in the interest of justice, the order allowing submission stood, but imposed a P1,000.00 fine on the prosecution for the delay.

• The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioners because no summons was served upon Ronald and the Office of the Solicitor General personally, and service upon counsel of Ronald was insufficient.
• The Office of the Solicitor General should have been given an opportunity to be heard on behalf of the People of the Philippines as it is the appellate counsel in criminal cases.
• The filing of a Petition for Certiorari was improper because the remedy of appeal was still available to respondent since the criminal case was still ongoing and no witnesses had yet been presented.
• The determination of whether there was a valid reason for the belated submission of Judicial Affidavits depends upon the trial court judge's discretion, which should not be disturbed.
• Respondent's failure to attach a copy of the pre-trial's stenographic notes to his Petition for Certiorari should have prompted the RTC to dismiss the petition outright.

• The Petition for Review should have been instituted by the Office of the Solicitor General as the only party authorized to represent the People of the Philippines in cases before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, and the Petition was not verified by the People.
• Summons is not required in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; the court need only issue an order requiring respondents to comment.
• A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the November 21, 2013 Order of the MTCC because it is an interlocutory order from which no appeal may be taken.
• The MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of Judicial Affidavits because the excuse offered ("for whatever reason") does not constitute a valid justification warranting relaxation of the rules under the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
• The failure to attach stenographic notes was not a fatal error meriting dismissal as it constituted substantial compliance with the rules.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over petitioners Ronald Geralino M. Lim and the People of the Philippines despite the alleged lack of personal service of summons.
  • Whether the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was the proper remedy to question the November 21, 2013 Order of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits by the prosecution.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that summons need not be issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; the court need only issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition, which shall be served in such manner as the court may direct.
  • The Court found that service was actually effected on January 29, 2014 upon Ronald through his counsel, and on January 30, 2014 upon the People of the Philippines (represented by the City Prosecutor) and Judge Artuz.
  • Even assuming arguendo that service was improper, petitioners are deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the RTC's jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings through the filing of comments/oppositions to the temporary restraining order and to the petition itself.
  • The Office of the Solicitor General need not be served in a certiorari petition assailing the act of a judge; under Rule 65, Section 5, the private respondent (here, the complainant Ronald) is mandated to appear and defend both on his own behalf and on behalf of the public respondent (the People).
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's ruling that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits.
  • The Court ruled that the MTCC blatantly disregarded the clear wording of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), which mandates that the prosecution submit judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before pre-trial, with failure to submit deemed a waiver.
  • While the Rule allows late submission once for a valid reason without undue prejudice and upon payment of a fine, the prosecution's excuse of "for whatever reason" after three postponements of the pre-trial (from August 12 to September 5, to October 17, to November 21, 2013) cannot be considered a valid justification.
  • Certiorari is the proper remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction and acts of grave abuse of discretion, and is available despite the pendency of the criminal case because the order allowing belated submission was interlocutory, not final.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; applied to characterize the MTCC's allowance of belated submission of judicial affidavits without valid reason after multiple postponements.
• Mutual Exclusivity of Appeal and Certiorari — The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; when appeal is available, certiorari shall not be entertained. However, certiorari is proper against interlocutory orders where grave abuse of discretion is alleged.
• Interlocutory vs. Final Orders — A final order completely disposes of a case, while an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case and indicates that other things remain to be done; applied to determine that the MTCC order allowing belated submission was interlocutory and thus properly assailed via certiorari.
• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction — When a party participates in a proceeding despite improper service of summons, he or she is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction; applied to hold that petitioners submitted to RTC jurisdiction by filing comments and oppositions.
• Service of Summons in Certiorari — In special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65, the court need only issue an order requiring respondents to comment, unlike ordinary civil actions where summons must be issued upon filing of the complaint.

• "The trial court's noncompliance with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion, which may be remedied by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court."
• "Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as a 'capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.'"
• "The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive."
• "Here, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in blatantly disregarding the clear wording of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, or the Judicial Affidavit Rule."
• "Its excuse— 'for whatever reason'— cannot be considered sufficient to allow the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits."

• Cruz v. People, 812 Phil. 166 (2017) — Controlling precedent establishing that a trial court's noncompliance with the Rules of Court constitutes grave abuse of discretion remediable by certiorari under Rule 65; followed by the Court in ruling that the MTCC's disregard of the Judicial Affidavit Rule constituted grave abuse of discretion.
• People's General Insurance Corporation v. Guansing, G.R. No. 204759, November 14, 2018 — Cited for the principle that when a party participates in a proceeding despite improper service of summons, he or she is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction; applied to hold that petitioners submitted to RTC jurisdiction by filing comments.
• Rigor v. Court of Appeals, 526 Phil. 852 (2006) — Cited for the rule that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
• Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 479 Phil. 768 (2004) — Cited for the same principle regarding mutual exclusivity of appeal and certiorari.
• Denso (Philippines), Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256 (1987) — Cited for the distinction between final orders (which completely dispose of a case) and interlocutory orders (which do not finally dispose of the case); applied to determine that the MTCC order was interlocutory.
• Araullo v. Aquino III, 737 Phil. 457 (2014) — Cited for the definition that certiorari is a remedy directed not only to correct errors of jurisdiction, but also to set right, undo, and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Rule 65, Section 5 of the Rules of Court — Provides that when a petition for certiorari relates to acts or omissions of a judge, the petitioner shall join as private respondents the persons interested in sustaining the proceedings, who shall appear and defend both in their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent; cited to explain why the Office of the Solicitor General need not be served.
• Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court — Provides that in a petition for certiorari, the court shall issue an order requiring respondents to comment, rather than issuing summons; cited to establish that personal service of summons is not required in certiorari proceedings.
• Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court — Defines civil actions as either ordinary or special, with special civil actions governed by rules for ordinary civil actions subject to specific rules; cited to distinguish certiorari from ordinary civil actions.
• Rule 14, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Requires issuance of summons upon filing of complaint in ordinary civil actions; distinguished from the procedure in Rule 65.
• Rule 41, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Defines the subject of appeal as a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, and excludes interlocutory orders; cited to establish that the MTCC order was interlocutory and not appealable.
• A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), Section 9 — Mandates that the prosecution shall submit judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before pre-trial; cited as the mandatory provision violated by the prosecution and disregarded by the MTCC.
• A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), Section 10 — Provides that failure to submit judicial affidavits on time constitutes a waiver, but allows late submission once for a valid reason without undue prejudice and upon payment of a fine; cited to establish the limited exception not applicable in this case.