368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
G.R.No.152903.July17,2006.*
THOMASITA RODRIGUEZ, petitioner,vs.ROLANDO
GADIANE&RICARDORAFOLSJR.,respondents.
Certiorari;Words and Phrases;The term aggrieved
partiesinspecialcivilactionforcertiorariincludetheState
and the private offended party.A special civil action for
certiorari may befiledby an aggrieved party alleging grave
abuseofdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdiction
onthepartofthetrialcourt.Inalonglineofcases,thisCourt
construedthetermaggrievedpartiestoincludetheStateand
theprivateoffendedpartyorcomplainant.
Same;Theoffendedpartiesincriminalcaseshavesufficient
interest and personality as person(s) aggrieved to file the
special civil action.As early as in the case ofParedes v.
Gopengco, 29 SCRA 688, 699 (1969), it was held that the
offendedpartiesincriminalcaseshavesufficientinterestand
personality as person(s) aggrieved to file the special civil
actionofprohibitionandcertiorariunderSections1and2of
Rule65.Apropostheretoisthecasecitedbypetitioner,Dela
Rosav.CourtofAppeals,253SCRA499,507(1996),whereinit
was categorically stated that the aggrieved parties are the
Stateandtheprivateoffendedpartyorcomplainant.
Same;The complainant has such an interest in the civil
aspect of the case that he may file a special civil action
questioningthedecisionoractionoftherespondentcourton
jurisdictionalgrounds,andhemaydosobynotbringingitin
thenameofthePeopleofthePhilippines,butinhisname.It
wasfurtherheldinDelaRosathatthecomplainanthassuch
aninterestinthecivilaspectofthecasethathemayfilea
special civil action questioning the decision or action of the
respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,
complainant should not bring the action in the name of the
PeopleofthePhilippines.Heshoulddosoandprosecuteitin
his name as such complainant. In the same vein, the cases
ofMartinezv.CourtofAppeals,377Phil.642(1999);Santosv.
CourtofAppeals,319SCRA609(1999),andChuav.Courtof
Appeals, 443 SCRA 259 (2004), adhere to the doctrines
mentionedabove.
_______________
*
THIRDDIVISION.
369
VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 369
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
Same;Thecapabilityoftheprivatecomplainanttoquestion
suchdismissaloracquittalislimitedonlytothecivilaspectof
the case.The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the
criminalcaseisdismissedbythetrialcourtorifthereisan
acquittal,theappealonthecriminalaspectofthecasemustbe
institutedbytheSolicitorGeneralinbehalfoftheState.The
capability of the private complainant to question such
dismissaloracquittalislimitedonlytothecivilaspectofthe
case. This rule is reiterated in theMetrobankcase cited by
respondent.However,itshouldberememberedthattheorder
whichhereinpetitionerseekstoassailisnotonedismissing
the case or acquitting respondents. Hence, there is no
limitationtothecapacityoftheprivatecomplainanttoseek
judicialreviewoftheassailedorder.
Same;The suspension of the criminal action in cases of
violationofB.P.22whichpetitionerdecrieswouldnecessarily
causedelayintheresolutionofthecivilaspectofthesaidcase
which precisely is the interest of petitioner, which interest
warrantstheprotectionfromcourts.Inthiscase,thereisno
doubtthatpetitionermaintainsaninterestinthelitigationof
thecivilaspectofthecaseagainstrespondents.Section1(b),
Rule111ofthe2000RulesofCriminalProcedurestatesthat
thecriminalactionforviolationofB.P.22shallbedeemedto
include the corresponding civil action. Hence, the possible
conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a
judgmentfordamagesinfavorofpetitioner.Thesuspensionof
the criminal case which petitioner decries would necessarily
causedelayintheresolutionofthecivilaspectofthesaidcase
whichpreciselyistheinterestandconcernofpetitioner.Such
interest warrants protection from the courts. Significantly,
under the present Rules of Court, complainants in B.P. 22
caseshavetopayfilingfeesuponthecommencementofsuch
casesincourttoprotecttheirinterest.
Same;In a special civil action for certiorari filed under
Section1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtwhereinitisalleged
that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional
grounds,therulesstatethatthepetitionmaybefiledbythe
person aggrieved.The basic postulates concerning the
capacityofaprivatecomplainantinthecriminalcasetoseek
judicial relief from adverse orders by the trial court were
eloquently elucidated inPeople v. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143
(1989).Theelucidationdeservesiterationasaproperclosing.
It is wellsettled that in criminal cases where the offended
partyistheState,theinterestoftheprivatecomplainantor
theprivateoffendedpartyislimitedtothecivilliability.Thus,
in the prosecution of the offense, the complainants role is
limitedtothatofawitnessfortheprosecution.Ifacriminal
caseisdismissed
370
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal
therefromonthecriminalaspectmaybeundertakenonlyby
the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor
GeneralmayrepresentthePeopleofthePhilippinesonappeal.
Theprivateoffendedpartyorcomplainantmaynottakesuch
appeal.However,thesaidoffendedpartyorcomplainantmay
appealthecivilaspectdespitetheacquittaloftheaccused.In
aspecialcivilactionforcertiorarifiledunderSection1,
Rule65oftheRulesofCourtwhereinitisallegedthat
the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictionalgrounds,therulesstatethatthepetition
may be filed by theperson aggrieved.In such case, the
aggrievedpartiesaretheStateandtheprivateoffendedparty
orcomplainant.Thecomplainanthasaninterestinthecivil
aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioningthedecisionoractionoftherespondentcourton
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not
bringtheactioninthenameofthePeopleofthePhilippines.
Theactionmaybeprosecutedinnameofsaidcomplainant.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the
RegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity,Br.12.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
JoseJonasP.Salasforpetitioner.
AlbertoE.Dico,Jr.andPetroniloB.Floresforrespondents.

TINGA,J.:

TheCourtiscalledupontoresolvethequestionofwhethera
private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a
specialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65,assailingan
interlocutory order, without the conformity of the public
prosecutor.
Thefactsaresimple.
Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private
complainantinacriminalcasefiledagainstRolandoGadiane
and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), for violation ofBatas
Pambansa Bilang22 (B.P. 22). The Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) hearing the complaint had suspended the criminal
proceedingonthegroundthataprejudicialquestionwasposed
inaseparatecivilcasethenpending.On28February2001,
petitionerfiledapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65before
the
371
VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 371
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch12,seekingtosetaside
the MTC order of suspension. The petition was docketed as
CivilCaseNo.CEB26195.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
groundthatthepetitionwasfiledbytheprivatecomplainant,
insteadofthegovernmentprosecutorrepresentingthePeople
ofthePhilippinesincriminalcases.
InanOrder1dated11December2001,theRTCdismissed
the petition for lack of conformity or signature of the
government prosecutor. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
butitwasdeniedon28February2002.
From theseorders, petitioner filed the instant petition for
review.Petitionerarguesthatapersonaggrievedmayfilea
specialcivilactionforcertiorariandthatpersonincludesthe
complainantortheoffendedparty.2Petitionercitedthecases
ofDe La Rosa v. Court of Appeals 3andPeople v. Calo4to
supportherclaimthataspecialactiononanorderissuedbya
lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private
offendedparty.
IntheirComment,respondentssubmitthatinallcriminal
cases, all initiatory pleadings, as well as subsequent
proceedings, must be initiated by the government counsel
becausetheinjuredpartyisthePeopleofthePhilippinesand
the private complainant is a mere witness to the offense
allegedlycommittedbytheaccused.5Respondentsrelyonthe
casesofPeoplev.Dacudao6andMetropolitanBankandTrust
Company v. Veridiano II7to reiterate their position that a
privateprosecutorinacriminalcasehasnoauthoritytoactfor
the People of the Philippines. According to them, it is the
governmentscoun
_______________
1
Rollo,p.23,issuedbyJudgeApronianoB.Taypin.
2
Id.,atp.14.
3
323Phil.596,606;253SCRA499,507(1996).
4
G.R.No.88531,18June1990,186SCRA620,624.
5
Rollo,p.44.
6
G.R.No.81389,21February1989,170SCRA489.
7
412Phil.795;360SCRA359(2001).
372
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
sel, the Solicitor General, who appears in criminal cases or
incidentsbeforetheSupremeCourt.
Wefindmeritinthepetition.
A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an
aggrievedpartyalleginggraveabuseofdiscretionamounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial
court.8Inalonglineofcases,thisCourtconstruedtheterm
aggrieved parties to include the State and the private
offendedpartyorcomplainant.
AsearlyasinthecaseofParedesv.Gopengco,9itwasheld
that the offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient
interest and personality as person(s) aggrieved to file the
specialcivilactionofprohibitionandcertiorariunderSections
1 and 2 of Rule 65. Apropos thereto is the case cited by
petitioner,De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals,10wherein it was
categorically stated that the aggrieved parties are the State
andtheprivateoffendedpartyorcomplainant.Itwasfurther
heldinDelaRosathatthecomplainanthassuchaninterest
inthecivilaspectofthecasethathemayfileaspecialcivil
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent
court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant
shouldnotbringtheactioninthenameofthePeopleofthe
Philippines.Heshoulddosoandprosecuteitinhisnameas
suchcomplainant.Inthesamevein,thecasesofMartinezv.
CourtofAppeals,11Santosv.CourtofAppeals,12andChuav.
CourtofAppeals13adheretothedoctrinesmentionedabove.
The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the criminal
caseisdismissedbythetrialcourtorifthereisanacquittal,
the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be
institutedbytheSolicitorGeneralinbehalfoftheState.The
capabilityoftheprivatecomplain
_______________
8
RULESOFCOURT,Rule65,Sec.1.
9
140Phil.81, 93;29 SCRA 688, 699 (1969); SeePeoplev.
Calo,G.R.No.88531,18June1990,186SCRA620,624.
10
Supranote3.
11
377Phil.642(1999).
12
G.R.No.127899,2December1999,319SCRA609.
13
G.R.No.150793,19November2004,443SCRA259.
373
VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 373
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
anttoquestionsuchdismissaloracquittalislimitedonlyto
the civil aspect of the case.14This rule is reiterated in
theMetrobankcasecitedbyrespondent.However,itshouldbe
remembered that the order which herein petitioner seeks to
assailisnotonedismissingthecaseoracquittingrespondents.
Hence, there is no limitation to the capacity of the private
complainanttoseekjudicialreviewoftheassailedorder.
Theothercasecitedbypetitioner,Dacudao,warrantssome
elaboration.TheCourtthereindidquestionthefactthatthe
specialcivilactionassailingthegrantofbailwasfilednotby
the representatives of the People, but by the private
prosecutor.However,thedoctrinalvalueofsuchstatementis
doubtful, considering that the Court nonetheless gave
cognizance to the special civil action, in the interest of a
speedydeterminationofthecase,amongothers.Moreover,it
should be appreciated that the order assailed inDacudao,
whichpertainedtothegrantofbail,intimatelyconcernedthe
criminalaspectofthecaseandhadnodiscerniblerelationto
itscivilaspect.
Inthiscase,thereisnodoubtthatpetitionermaintainsan
interestinthelitigationofthecivilaspectofthecaseagainst
respondents. Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for
violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. Hence, the possible conviction of
respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for
damagesinfavorofpetitioner.Thesuspensionofthecriminal
casewhichpetitionerdecrieswouldnecessarilycausedelayin
the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case which
precisely is the interest and concern of petitioner. Such
interest warrants protection from the courts. Significantly,
underthepresentRulesofCourt,15complainantsin
_______________
14
RULESOFCOURT,Rule110,Sec.16.
 15
RULESOFCOURT,Rule111,Sec.1(b).
xxxx
Uponfilingoftheaforesaidjointcriminalandcivilactions,
theoffendedpartyshallpayinfullthefilingfeesbasedonthe
amountofthecheckinvolved,whichshallbeconsideredasthe
actualdamagesclaimed.Wherethecomplaintorinformation
alsoseekstorecoverliquidated,moral,nominal,temperateor
exemplarydamages,theof
374
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Rodriguez vs. Gadiane
B.P.22caseshavetopayfilingfeesuponthecommencement
ofsuchcasesincourttoprotecttheirinterest.
The basic postulates concerning the capacity of a private
complainantin thecriminalcasetoseekjudicialrelieffrom
adverse orders by the trial court were eloquently elucidated
inPeoplev.Santiago.16Theelucidationdeservesiterationasa
properclosing.
It is wellsettled that in criminal cases where the offended
partyistheState,theinterestoftheprivatecomplainantor
theprivateoffendedpartyislimitedtothecivilliability.Thus,
in the prosecution of the offense, the complainants role is
limitedtothatofawitnessfortheprosecution.Ifacriminal
caseisdismissedbythetrialcourtorifthereisanacquittal,
anappealtherefromonthecriminalaspectmaybeundertaken
only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the
SolicitorGeneralmayrepresentthePeopleofthePhilippines
onappeal.Theprivateoffendedpartyorcomplainantmaynot
take such appeal. However, the said offended party or
complainantmayappealthecivilaspectdespitetheacquittal
oftheaccused.
In a special civil action for certiorari filed under
Section1,Rule65of the Rules of Court wherein it is
allegedthatthetrialcourtcommittedagraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionoronother
jurisdictionalgrounds,therulesstatethatthepetition
may be filed by theperson aggrieved.In such case, the
aggrievedpartiesaretheStateandtheprivateoffendedparty
orcomplainant.Thecomplainanthasaninterestinthecivil
aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioningthedecisionoractionoftherespondentcourton
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not
bringtheactioninthenameofthePeopleofthePhilippines.
The action may be prosecuted in name of said
complainant.17(Emphasissupplied)
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.Theassailedorders
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Cebu City, dated
December11,
_______________

fended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the

amountsallegedtherein.Iftheamountsarenotsoallegedbut
anyofthesedamagesaresubsequentlyawardedbythecourt,
the filing fees are based on the amount awarded shall
constituteafirstlienonthejudgment.
xxx
16
G.R.No.80778,20June1989,174SCRA143.
17
Id.,atpp.153154.
375
 VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 375
Ramcar, Incorporated vs. Hi-Power Marketing
2001andFebruary28,2002,areSETASIDE.CivilCaseNo.
CEB26195isREINSTATED.Costsagainstrespondents.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing(Chairperson),Carpio,CarpioMoralesand
Velasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, assailed orders set aside, Civil Case No.
CEB26195reinstated.
Note.A special civil action for certiorari is x x x x x a
remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the
injuriouseffectsofthatjudgmentandtheactsoftheinferior
courtortribunal.(Romerovs.Tan,424SCRA155[2004])

o0o
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.