CASE TITLE

People v.
Hon. Zeida
Aurora
Garfin &
Serafin
Seballegue

KEYWORDS /
DOCTRINE
Businessman
(employer)
who
refused to pay his
employees
SSS
contributions gets
sued
(Branch 19RTC Naga City)
Doctrine:
Lack of authority on
the part of the filing
officer prevents the
court
from
acquiring
jurisdiction over the
case

FACTS
Respondent S. Seballegue is the owner of Saballegue Printing Press. Seballegue was
charged with violation of the "Social Security Act or RA 8282 (Section 22(a) in rel. to Sec.
19(b) and 28(e)," due to his failure and continuous refusal to remit the SSS premiums due
to one of his employees (in the amount of (P6,533.00 from January 1990 to December
1999 and the 3% penalty per month for late remittance in the amount of P11,143.28)
despite repeated demands.
A complaint was filed against Seballegue. Seballegue filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the information was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the
city prosecutor as required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the ROC.
State Prosecutor (SP) Tolentino, filed an opposition, against which the accused
filed a rejoinder. An MR (Motion for Reconsideration) was filed by SP Tolentino contending
that as a special prosecutor designated by the regional state prosecutor to handle SSS
cases within Region V, SP Tolentino is authorized to file the information involving violations
of the SSS law without need of prior approval from the city prosecutor. Letters of
commendation from Chief SP Zuo and DOJ Sec. Perez were offered as proofs to show that
SP Tolentinos authority to file the information was recognized. In response, the defense
pointed out in its opposition that the MR lacked a notice of hearing, hence it is pro forma or
a mere scrap of paper.
RTC: Motion to dismiss granted
OSG: The lack of authority or approval of the city or provincial prosecutor/chief state
prosecutor is an infirmity = Lacks jurisdiction
CA: Affirmed

ISSUE AND RULING

ISSUE: WON lack of authority on the part of the filing
officer prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction
over the case
HELD:
YES. As provided under Rule 117 section 3 of the
ROC, the accused may move to quash the complaint
or information on any of the following grounds
(d) That the officer who filed the information had
no authority to do so;
In relation to Rule 112, Sec 4 (par 3), ROC
No complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the
prior written authority or approval of the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
And in view of the Villa ruling that if the filing officer
lacks authority to file the information, jurisdiction is not
conferred on the court and this infirmity cannot be
cured by silence or waiver, acquiescence or even by
express consent.
In this case, the absence of a directive from Sec. of
Justice designating SP Tolentino as a Special
Prosecutor for SSS cases or a prior written approval of
the information by the provincial or city prosecutor, the
information in the criminal case was filed by an officer
without authority to file the same. Having such an
infirmity in the information constitutes a jurisdictional
defect that cannot be cured. Therefore, the lack of
prior authority or approval by the city or provincial

prosecutor or chief state prosecutor being an infirmity

in the information, prevented the court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the case.
Criminal Case is Dismissed.