BAARES II V.
BALISING A provisional dismissal of a criminal case is a dismissal
GR NO. 132624 | MARCH 13, 2000
KAPUNAN, J.
MARIA CATALINA | GROUP 4
PETITONERS: FIDEL M. BAARES II, LILIA C.
VALERIANO, EDGAR M. BAARES, EMILIA
GATCHALIAN and FIDEL BESARINO
RESPONDENTS: ELIZABETH BALISING, ROGER ALGER,
MERLINDA CAPARIC, EUSTAQUIO R. TEJONES, ANDREA
SAYAM, JENNY ISLA, WILMA ROGATERO, PABLITO
ALEGRIA, ROLANDO CANON, EDITHA ESTORES,
EDMUNDO DOROYA, TERESITA GUION, DANNY
ANDARAYAN, LOURDES CADAY, ROGELIO MANO,
EVANGELINE CABILTES AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF
RIZAL, Antipolo, Rizal
TOPIC: H. Motion to Quash; 6. Provisional Dismissal
CASE SUMMARY AND DOCTRINE:
The MTC dismissed the 16 estafa cases filed against the
petitioners on the ground of failure to undergo
conciliation proceedings. After more than 2 months, the
private respondents filed a motion to revive the cases.
This was opposed by the petitioners, contending that the
MTCs order is final and executory considering that no
motion for reconsideration was filed by the prosecution.
The MTC and the RTC ruled to revive the cases.
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that an
order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order
if no motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is
timely filed. After the lapse of the 15-day period, an
order becomes final and executory and is beyond the
power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to
further amend or revoke. A party who wishes to
reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new
complaint. This rule applies to criminal cases in general
as well as to cases covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure.
TERMS:
A final order is one which disposes of the subject matter
in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or
action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by
execution what has been determined by the court. A final
judgment or order cannot be modified in any respect, even
if the modification sought is for the purpose of correcting
an erroneous conclusion by the court which rendered the
same.
An interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of a
case completely, but leaves something more to be
adjudicated upon.
1The legal bases for such are Section 412 in relation to Section 408
of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 18 of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before the
order of dismissal becomes final or to the subsequent
filing of a new information for the offense (Jaca v. Blanco.)
FACTS:
The petitioners were the accused in 16 criminal cases for
estafa filed by the private respondents.
After the petitioners were arraigned and entered their
plea of not guilty, they filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the filing of the cases, which involved no
amount exceeding p200, was premature, in view of the
failure of the parties, who lived in the same barangay, to
undergo conciliation proceedings.1
The MTC denied the motion at first but ultimately
dismissed the estafa cases against the petitioners without
prejudice upon the latters motion for reconsideration.
More than 2 months after, the private respondents filed a
motion to revive the estafa cases after the parties failure
to reach an amicable settlement in the conciliation
proceedings.
The petitioners opposed such motion claiming that the
cases had long become final and executory considering
that the prosecution did not file any motion for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
The MTC granted the private respondents motion to
revive. After the denial of their motion for
reconsideration, the petitioners filed with the RTC a
petition for certiorari, injunction, and prohibition
assailing the first level courts order. The petition was
denied. The RTC emphasized that the dismissal was
without prejudice.
The case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari of the
RTCs decision.
Arguments: The private respondents submit that the
cases covered by the 1991 Revised on Summary Procedure
are not covered by the rule regarding finality of decisions
and orders under the Revised Rules of Court. On the other
hand, the petitioners contend that an order dismissing a
case or action without prejudice may attain finality if not
appealed within the reglementary period.
ISSUE:
WON the MTCs dismissal order is final and executory
[YES]
RULING: YES. For failure to appeal within the reglementary
period, the dismissal order is a final and executory. The
private respondents only remedy is to file a new complaint.
The dismissal without prejudice of a complaint does not
however mean that said dismissal order was any less final.
Such Order of dismissal is complete in all details, and
though without prejudice, nonetheless finally disposed of
 the matter. It was not merely an interlocutory order but a Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo are ordered
final disposition of the complaint (Olympia International DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Sec. 18 of the
v. Court of Appeals.) 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
[A]fter dismissal has become final after the lapse of the
fifteen day reglementary period, the only way by which
the action may be resuscitated or revived is by the
institution of a subsequent action through the filing of
another complaint and the payment of fees prescribed by
law. This is so because upon attainment of finality of the
dismissal through the lapse of said reglementary period,
the Court loses jurisdiction and control over it and can no
longer make a disposition in respect thereof inconsistent
with such dismissal (Ortigas & Company Limited
Partnership v. Velasco.)
Such rule applies not only to civil cases but to criminal
cases as well. In the case of Jaca v. Blanco, the Court
defined provisional dismissal of a criminal case as a
dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof
before the order of dismissal becomes final or to the
subsequent filing of a new information for the offense.
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure expressly
provides that the Rules of Court applies suppletorily to
cases covered by the former (Sec. 22.) The rules regarding
finality of judgments also apply to cases covered by the
rules on summary procedure.
o The principle (interpretare et concordare legibus
est optimus interpretandi) that every statute
must be so construed and harmonized with other
statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence applies in interpreting both sets of
Rules.
o The doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded
on fundamental considerations of public policy
and sound practice that at the risk of occasional
error, the judgments of the courts must become
final at some definite date set by law. It is logical
to infer that such principle also applies to cases
subject to summary procedure since the latters
objective is precisely to settle cases expeditiously.
Note: The Court pointed out that the MTC had committed
an error in dismissing the case upon motion to dismiss by
the petitioners after their arraignment and pleading. Non-
referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so
required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and
may therefore by deemed waived if not raised seasonably
in a motion to dismiss. Even so, the said order may no
longer be revoked considering that the same had already
become final and executory.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal,
Branch II dated August 26, 1997 and its Order dated
January 29, 1998 in SCA Case No. 96-4092 are hereby SET
ASIDE and Criminal Cases Nos. 94-0829, 94-0830, 94-0831,
94-0832, 94-0833, 94-0836, 94-0838, 94-0839, 94- 0841, 94-
0843, 94-0847, 94-0848, 94-0850, 94-0854 and 94-0058 of the