Tadeo vs. The Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan

A writ of prohibition will not issue to restrain a preliminary investigation where the accused has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and a civil action for declaratory relief filed by a notary public who is not a party to the questioned instrument does not present a prejudicial question that can suspend the criminal proceeding.

Spouses Leoncio Maicong and Emilia Acosta engaged Atty. Tomas B. Tadeo, a lawyer and notary public, to prepare a document that they believed would partition their conjugal partnership property. Unknown to them, Tadeo drafted a deed of sale conveying their parcel of land to one Francisco Bongato, and the spouses signed and acknowledged the instrument before Tadeo on the understanding that it was the partition they had requested. Upon discovering the true nature of the document, the spouses sued Tadeo for damages in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and later filed a criminal complaint for estafa against him in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mangaldan, alleging that Tadeo fraudulently induced them to sign the deed of sale.

• The Allegedly Fraudulent Deed and the First Civil Action: Spouses Leoncio Maicong and Emilia Acosta retained Atty. Tomas B. Tadeo to draft a document partitioning their conjugal partnership property. Tadeo instead prepared a deed of sale conveying their land to Francisco Bongato. The spouses, unaware of the substitution, signed and acknowledged the instrument before Tadeo in his capacity as notary public. On 29 January 1949, the spouses filed Civil Case No. 10579 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against Tadeo and Bongato, seeking damages of ₱2,000 and attorney’s fees of ₱1,500 on the ground that Tadeo fraudulently drafted the deed and induced them to sign it. Tadeo and Bongato answered and asserted counterclaims for malicious prosecution.

• The First Criminal Case (No. 129): While Civil Case No. 10579 was pending, the spouses lodged a criminal complaint for estafa against Tadeo in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mangaldan (Criminal Case No. 129), relying on the same factual allegations. On 5 January 1956, the Justice of the Peace Court suspended the preliminary investigation at Tadeo’s instance, pending the final outcome of Civil Case No. 10579, which was deemed to have a direct bearing on the criminal charge. On 21 March 1956, the Court of First Instance dismissed Civil Case No. 10579 upon motion of the spouses, who stated they were no longer interested in prosecuting the action. Over Tadeo’s objection—he sought to prove his counterclaim—the trial court also dismissed Tadeo’s counterclaim, ruling that it was permissive and could be pursued in a separate suit. The dismissal was without trial on the merits. Subsequently, on 9 July 1956, the Justice of the Peace Court dismissed Criminal Case No. 129 without prejudice, one of the reasons being the pendency of Civil Case No. D-413 for declaratory judgment filed by Tadeo.

• Tadeo’s Declaratory Relief Action (Civil Case No. D-413): On 18 June 1956, Tadeo filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the spouses and Vicente Torralba in the same Court of First Instance. He prayed that a deed of quitclaim executed by the spouses on 27 March 1948 in favor of Francisco Bongato be declared as representing their true intention; that he be relieved from civil and criminal liability arising from his part as lawyer and notary public in drafting the deed of sale; and that the spouses be enjoined from impeaching the quitclaim. He further sought moral and actual damages and a writ of attachment. This civil action was pending when the second criminal complaint was filed.

• The Second Criminal Case (No. 263) and the Petition for Prohibition: On 30 April 1957, the spouses again filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Tadeo in the same Justice of the Peace Court of Mangaldan (Criminal Case No. 263), based on the identical facts alleged in Civil Case No. 10579 and Criminal Case No. 129. The Provincial Fiscal and Special Counsel proceeded to conduct the preliminary investigation. Tadeo then filed in the Court of First Instance a petition for a writ of prohibition (Civil Case No. D-539), seeking to enjoin the investigation. He contended that Civil Case No. D-413 raised a prejudicial question; that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 10579 and Criminal Case No. 129 barred further prosecution; and that the investigating officers acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• The Denial Order: On 30 July 1957, the Court of First Instance denied the petition. The trial court observed that Tadeo’s claim of persecution appeared to be “borne out by the previous cases between the parties which were dismissed,” but held that Tadeo had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law because he could raise all defenses at the proper time and appeal an adverse judgment. The court further ruled that the Provincial Fiscal and the Justice of the Peace Court possessed the authority to conduct the investigation. After Tadeo perfected his appeal, the trial court denied a motion filed by the Provincial Fiscal seeking to delete the statement regarding persecution, on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction.

• Prejudicial Question: Tadeo maintained that Civil Case No. D-413 for declaratory relief was prejudicial to Criminal Case No. 263 because both arose from the same transaction, and the declaration of the true intent of the parties would determine whether the crime of estafa had been committed.
• Bar by Prior Dismissals: He argued that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 10579 and Criminal Case No. 129 constituted a bar to the filing of a new criminal complaint grounded on the same facts.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Tadeo contended that the Provincial Fiscal and the Justice of the Peace Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in proceeding with the preliminary investigation despite the prejudicial nature of the pending civil case and the prior dismissals.

• No Prejudicial Question: Respondents countered that Civil Case No. D-413 did not raise a prejudicial question because Tadeo was not a real party in interest to the deed of sale; he was merely the notary public who acknowledged it, and the declaratory relief action was therefore improper. They further argued that the criminal case should be decided before the civil case could proceed.
• No Bar from Prior Dismissals: Respondents pointed out that Civil Case No. 10579 was dismissed for lack of interest and without trial on the merits, while Criminal Case No. 129 was dismissed without prejudice; neither dismissal barred the refiling of the criminal complaint.
• Availability of Ordinary Remedies: Respondents stressed that Tadeo had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by raising his defenses during the preliminary investigation and at trial, and by appealing if convicted, which precluded the issuance of the extraordinary writ of prohibition.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. D-413 for declaratory relief posed a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 263.
• Bar by Prior Dismissals: Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 10579 and Criminal Case No. 129 operated as a bar to the institution of Criminal Case No. 263.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Provincial Fiscal and the Justice of the Peace Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in conducting the preliminary investigation.
• Availability of Prohibition: Whether Tadeo had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that rendered the writ of prohibition improper.

• Prejudicial Question: The pendency of Civil Case No. D-413 did not present a prejudicial question. Tadeo, who was not one of the contracting parties to the deed of sale but merely the notary public before whom the spouses acknowledged its execution, had no rights or duties under the instrument requiring judicial declaration. The action for declaratory relief was therefore improper; consequently, it could not suspend the criminal investigation.
• Bar by Prior Dismissals: Civil Case No. 10579 was dismissed for lack of interest on the part of the plaintiffs, not on a determination that the alleged fraud had not been committed. Criminal Case No. 129 was dismissed without prejudice. Neither dismissal had the effect of barring a subsequent criminal complaint founded on the same operative facts.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Provincial Fiscal, Special Counsel, and the Justice of the Peace Court possess the power and authority to conduct preliminary investigations of crimes within their territorial jurisdiction. Their undertaking of the investigation in Criminal Case No. 263 did not constitute grave abuse of discretion; on the contrary, it was their duty to ascertain whether an offense had been committed and, if so, to prosecute the guilty party.
• Availability of Prohibition: Tadeo had the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of setting up all available defenses at the preliminary investigation and at trial, and of appealing from any adverse judgment. The existence of this ordinary legal remedy precluded resort to the extraordinary writ of prohibition. The denial of the petition was therefore proper.

• Prejudicial Question — Standing to Raise — A civil action can pose a prejudicial question sufficient to suspend a criminal proceeding only if the civil case involves an issue that is determinative of the criminal charge and is instituted by a real party in interest. A notary public who merely acknowledges a document is not a contracting party and has no legal interest that requires a declaratory judgment as to the document’s validity or effect; such an action for declaratory relief does not give rise to a prejudicial question.

• Prohibition — Exhaustion of Ordinary Remedies — The extraordinary remedy of prohibition will not issue where the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The opportunity to present defenses during a preliminary investigation and at trial, and to appeal an adverse judgment, constitutes such an adequate remedy.

• Effect of Dismissal Without Prejudice — The dismissal of a criminal case “without prejudice” does not bar a subsequent criminal complaint for the same offense. Similarly, the dismissal of a civil action for lack of interest of the plaintiff does not operate as an adjudication on the merits that precludes criminal prosecution.

• “[T]he appellant not being one of the contracting parties to the deed of sale executed by the appellees spouses but took part only as notary public before whom they acknowledged the execution thereof is not entitled to file an action for declaratory judgment. None of his rights or duties thereunder need be declared.” — This excerpt explains why the declaratory relief suit could not support a claim of prejudicial question.

• “In the appropriate case and at the opportune time, he may set up all defenses available to him and may appeal from an adverse judgment.” — This passage defines the adequate ordinary remedy that barred prohibition.

• “It was incumbent upon them to inquire whether an offense had been committed, and, if they should find it had been committed, to charge and prosecute the guilty party.” — The Court underscored that the investigating officers’ actions were a fulfillment of their duty, not an abuse of discretion.

N/A — The decision does not expressly cite prior case law by name or citation.

N/A — No specific constitutional provision, statute, codal article, or procedural rule is cited by reference in the decision. The ruling is grounded on general remedial law principles governing prohibition, prejudicial questions, and the scope of prosecutorial authority.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concurred.

None. The decision was reached en banc with full concurrence.