TADEO V. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PANGASINAN G.R. No. L-16476. January 31, 1962 Padilla, J. FACTS: 1.

In the Civil case 10759, spouses Emilia Acosta and Leoncio Maicong sued Tadeo for damages allegedly for preparing a deed of sale of their parcel of land conveying it to Francisco Bongato and fraudulently inducing them to sign the deed of sale which they did sign under the belief that it was a partition of their conjugal partnership property they had asked the appellant, a lawyer and notary public, to prepare and ratify. 2. The spouses filed again a complaint for estafa (criminal case no. 129). 3. The CFI dismissed the civil case on the ground that upon motion of the counsel of the spouses despite the objection of Tadeo. 4. Tadeo filed a complaint for declaratory relief (Civil Case D-413) in the CFI against the spouses and co-defendant Vicente Torralba praying that the deed of quitclaim executed by them in favor of Francisco Bongato be declare "the genuine document representing the true intention" of the spouses and that he (the appellant) relieved from civil and criminal liability arising from the part he had taken as lawyer and notary public in the drafting and execution thereof. 5. The criminal case was subsequently dismissed on the ground that the dismissal of the civil case which was prejudicial precluded the continuation of the criminal case which arose from the same transaction alleged in the civil case. 6. Spouses again filed a criminal case No. 263 for estafa. 7. The respondents conducted preliminary investigation. 8. Tadeo filed a complaint against the spouses for declaratory judgment alleging that the dismissal of the civil and criminal cases constitutes a bar to further criminal prosecution of the appellant for estafa; that all these notwithstanding the appellee Provincial Fiscal and Special Counsel and the appellee Justice of the Peace Court were conducting the preliminary investigation of criminal case No. 263 against the appellant; that the act of the aforesaid appellees in conducting the preliminary investigation in the said criminal case constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to the appellant. The appellant prayed that the appellees be enjoined from conducting the preliminary investigation in criminal case No. 263 for estafa against him. ISSUE: Whether appellant is entitled to file an action for declaratory judgment. HELD: No. The pendency of civil case No. D-413 for declaratory judgment, commenced by the appellant against the appellees spouses in the Court of First Instance, was one of the reasons given by the Justice of the Peace Court to dismiss criminal case No. 129. However, the appellant not being one of the contracting parties to the deed of sale executed by the appellees spouses but took part only as notary public before whom they acknowledged the execution thereof is not entitled to file an action for declaratory judgment. None of his rights or duties thereunder need be declared. Another valid and good reason relied upon by the Court in denying the writ prayed for is that the appellant has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the appropriate case and at the opportune time, he may set up all defenses available to him and may appeal from an adverse judgment.