4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
as a recruitment agency from the POEA; and (2) that respondent Alamil voluntarily
submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction through the filing of pleadings seeking affirmative
relief. Thus, the RTC dismissed the case, and set aside the earlier issued warrants of
arrest.
On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing the existence of
probable cause to prosecute the respondents and that respondent Alamil had no
standing to seek any relief from the RTC.[22]
On April 26, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the motion for being a
prohibited pleading since the motion did not have the public prosecutor’s conformity.
[23]
In its May 10, 2006 order,[24] the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, finding that the petitioner merely reiterated arguments in issues that
had been finally decided. The RTC ordered the motion expunged from the records since
the motion did not have the public prosecutor’s conformity.
On May 19, 2006, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal.[25]
On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the petitioner’s notice of
appeal since the public prosecutor did not authorize the appeal and the petitioner had
no civil interest in the case.[26]
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.[27]
In its August 7, 2006 joint order,[28] the RTC denied the petitioner’s notice of appeal
since the petitioner filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General, who is
mandated to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions appealed to the
CA. Thus, the RTC ordered the notice of appeal expunged from the records.
On October 18, 2006, the petitioner elevated his case to the CA via a Rule 65 petition
for certiorari assailing the RTC’s March 8, 2006, May 10, 2006, and August 7, 2006
orders.
The CA Ruling
In its November 23, 2006 resolution,[29] the CA dismissed outright the petitioner’s Rule
65 petition for lack of legal personality to file the petition on behalf of the People of the
Philippines. It noted that only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has the legal
personality to represent the People, under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV
of the 1987 Administrative Code. It also held that the petitioner was not the real party
in interest to institute the case, him not being a victim of the crime charged to the
respondents, but a mere competitor in their recruitment business. The CA denied[30]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55390
3/8