JM Dominguez Agronomic Co., Inc. v.

Liclican
G.R. No. 208587
Topic: Rule 111; Prejudicial question
FACTS:
In their annual stockholders meeting, JM Dominguez Corporation (JMD) elected their new set of
directors. Respondent Liclican presided over the meeting and conducted the said election. Thereafter,
during the meeting, conflict ensued when private petitioners Patrick Pacis and Keneth Pacis were not
allowed to vote on the ground that they were not registered stockholders of JMD. As a result, respondents
allegedly walked out of the said meeting. However, the election of its new officers proceeded because of
the existence of a quorum. Petitioners herein were then duly elected as the new set of directors of JMD.
Respondents, on the other hand, executed a Board Resolution certifying that they were the ones duly
elected during the said meeting.
Consequently, petitioners filed a complaint against respondents before the RTC of Baguio City seeking
the nullification of meetings, elections, and acts of directors, and other reliefs. The case was then referred
to judicial dispute resolution (JDR). While the civil case was pending, petitioners represented themselves
as JMDs lawful directors and collected and deposited rents due to the company. Petitioners, as directors
of JMD, subsequently filed a complaint charging respondents with qualified theft for withdrawing from
the companys savings account, without any authority whatsoever, in the amount of P852,000.00. They
also alleged that respondents issued a check in the amount of P200,000.00 payable to cash, to be drawn
against JMD.
The RTC of Baguio City issued an Order finding probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against respondents. However, on appeal, the CA annulled the said Order, and that the same was issued
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA stated that the RTC
judge should have refrained from determining probable cause because she is well aware of the pending
validity of the elections in the previous civil case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the civil case (validity JMDs elections) constitutes a prejudicial question that would
warrant a suspension of the criminal case of qualified theft
RULING + RATIO:
The petition lacks merit.
The Court ruled that the CA was correct in ruling that the Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The civil case, an intra-corporate dispute, posed a prejudicial
question to the criminal case. Without the resolution of the civil case, petitioners authority to commence
and prosecute the criminal case against respondents for qualified theft in JMDs behalf remained
questionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings.
Further, the resolution of the prejudicial question did not cure the defect of issuing the Order with grave
abuse of discretion. To rule otherwise would mean that there was a continuance of the criminal
proceeding despite the existence of the prejudicial question, rendering inutile the essence of the doctrine.
The trial court trying the criminal case would be permitted to proceed with trial with the assumption that
the resolution of the civil case would benefit the private complainant in the criminal proceedings.