42 JM Dominguez Co. v. Liclican Et Al.

Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Rule 111, Sec.
5-6 on a Prejudicial Question
JM Dominguez Agronomic Company et al v. Liclican et al.

G.R. No. 208587 July 29, 2015
Velasco, Jr. J:
FACTS:
 On December 29, 2007, petitioner JM Dominguez (JMD) Company had its annual
stockholders meeting and conducted elections for its new set of directors as facilitated
by its president respondent Cecilia Liclican and her co-respondents and petitioners who
were stockholders.
 Petitioners Patrick and Keneth Pacis were not allowed to vote for the company’s
directors as it was their mothers and grandmothers (both deceased) who were
registered stockholders and their estates have not been settled.
 Respondents Liclican, Isip, and Domiguez walked out of the meeting but since the
remaining stockholders constituted a quorum, petitioner Helen Dagdagan was elected as
President, petitioner Patrick Pacis as VP, petitioner Kenneth Pacis as Secretary, and
petitioner Shirley Dominguez as Treasurer.
 Respondents, at the same date, executed a Board Resolution that it was them who were
elected as JMD’s Board of Directors.
 Thus, Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents before the Baguio RTC for
nullification of meetings/election/ acts of directors with injuction and other relief.
 Petitioners also took hold of JMD’s properties and represented themselves to JMD
tenants as the lawful directors, collecting rents from said tenants.
 JMD, as represented by Helen Dagdagan and Patrick Pacis, charged respondent
Liclican and Isip with Qualified Theft alleging that the latter withdrew 852,024 from the
JMD’s Equitable PCI Bank savings account and they also drew a 200,000-peso check
payable to cash against JMD’s account. A separate complaint for issuing a 200,00-peso
check for an Atty. Lava was also filed.
 The City Prosecutor of Baguio recommended the Informations of Qualified Theft against
Liclican and Isip and the RTC judge found probable cause for the issuance of a warrants
of arrest against the accused for both cases.
 The accused filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to annul the orders for the filing of
the Informations and issuance of warrants of arrest against them on the basis of a
prejudicial question.
 CA granted the petition and annuled the Informations and warrants of arrest, ruling that
the civil case was still pending and that Dagdagan and Pacis were not authorized by the
JMD Board of Directors to sue on its behalf.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not it was proper for the CA to suspend the criminal complaints of Qualified
Theft as the civil case for nullification of meetings/election/acts constituted a prejudicial
question?
HELD
1. Yes, a prejudicial question exists when the resolution of the civil action would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Rule 111, Sec.5-6 on a Prejudicial Question
2. Elements of prejudicial question—(a) civil action involves a similar or intimately related

issue raised in the criminal action and (b) resolution determines whether or not criminal
action may proceed—are both present in this case.
3. Branch 7 RTC Baguio Judge Tabora who issued the warrants of arrest against accused
was also the judge who was assigned to handle the Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) of
the JM Dominguez Company, hence, she cannot feign ignorance as to the civil case
pending.
4. RTC ought to have suspended the proceedings instead of issuing the challenged Orders
of issuance of warrants of arrest and filing of cases.
5. That petitioners were subsequently ruled by the RTC as the duly elected board of
directos of JMD does not cure the grave abuse of discretion in the form of the issuance
of the challenged orders 2 years before, while the civil case with the RTC was still
pending.
6. However, given the resolution of the prejudicial question and Judge Tabora’s inhibition,
the criminal cases for Qualified Theft may already proceed and ought to be re-raffled.
DENIED, CA decision AFFIRMED. However, criminal case REMANDED.

42 JM Dominguez Co. v. Liclican Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

42 JM Dominguez Co. v. Liclican Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

42 JM Dominguez Co. v. Liclican Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Rule 111, Sec.

5-6 on a Prejudicial Question

JM Dominguez Agronomic Company et al v. Liclican et al.

2. Elements of prejudicial question—(a) civil action involves a similar or intimately related

You might also like