PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE, INC. represented by MICHAEL C. U.

DE
GUZMAN vs. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDADLICHAUCO and the HON. OMBUDSMAN,
G.R. No. 134887, July 27, 2006.

The Supreme Court cited Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
which provides:

Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements

of a prejudicial question are:

(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an

issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or

not the criminal action may proceed.

The Supreme Court held that “the rationale for the principle of
prejudicial question is that although it does not conclusively resolve
the guilt or innocence of the accused, it tests the sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint or information in order to sustain the
further prosecution of the criminal case”. Hence, the need for its prior
resolution before further proceedings in the criminal action may be
had.”

The Supreme Court stated that “to determine the existence of a

prejudicial question in the case before the Ombudsman, it is necessary
to examine the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for which
Lichauco (respondent) was charged and the causes of action in the civil
case.”

The Supreme Court stated that the civil case against Lichauco on the other hand
involved three causes of action. The first, for injunction; the second, for declaration of
nullity of award; and the third, for damages arising from Lichauco’s questioned acts.

The Supreme Court added: “If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot
153ºE is, in the civil case, declared valid for being within Lichauco’s scope of authority
to thus free her from liability for
damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor
would there be basis for undue injury claimed to have been
suffered by petitioner. The finding by the Ombudsman of the
existence of a prejudicial question is thus well-taken.”

B. VINCENT E. OMICTIN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et. al., G.R.

No.148004, January 22, 2007.

In this case the main issue was whether or not a prejudicial question existed to warrant the
suspension of the criminal proceedings for Estafa pending the resolution of the intra-
corporate controversy that was originally filed with the SEC.

The Supreme Court held that “a prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a
case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.” Here the case which was lodged originally
before the SEC and which was now pending before the RTC of Mandaluyong City by virtue of
Republic Act No. 8799 involved facts that were “intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution is based”, the Supreme Court added.

It stated that “ultimately, the resolution of the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute
will determine the guilt or innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa filed against
him by petitioner before the RTC of Makati”.

C. RICARDO QUIAMBAO vs. HON. ADRIANO OSORIO,

ZENAIDA GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA GAZA
BERNARDO, and FELIPE GAZA, respondents-appellees,
LAND AUTHORITY, G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988

In this case the controversy boiled down to “the sole question of whether or not the
administrative case between the private parties involving the lot subject matter of the
ejectment case constitutes a prejudicial question which would operate as a bar to said
ejectment case.” Here, the two cases involved were a civil case and an administrative case.
Even in such a scenario, the Supreme Court appreciated the presence of prejudicial
question.

The Supreme Court held that “a prejudicial question is understood in law to be

that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of
the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal.”

It stated that “the doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a
situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both
cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the
civil case before the criminal action can proceed.”

“Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal
case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination of the former”, the
Supreme Court added

It stated that “the essential elements of a prejudicial question as provided

In this case the actions involved were a civil and an administrative case.
Technically, there was no prejudicial question to speak of, the Supreme Court
stated. But it held that “equally apparent, however, is the intimate
correlation between said two [2] proceedings, stemming from the fact that
the right of private respondents to eject petitioner from the disputed portion
depends primarily on the resolution of the pending administrative case.”
 It added that “for while it may be true that private respondents had prior possession of
the lot in question, at the time of the institution of the ejectment case, such right of
possession had been terminated, or at the very least, suspended by the cancellation by the
Land Authority of the Agreement to Sell executed in their favor.” Further, it stated that
“whether or not private respondents can continue to exercise their right of possession is
but a necessary, logical consequence of the issue involved in the pending administrative
case assailing the validity of the cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent
award of the disputed portion to petitioner.” It added that “if the cancellation of the
Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award to petitioner are voided, then private
respondents would have every right to eject petitioner from the disputed area.” It added,
“otherwise, private respondent's light of possession is lost and so would their right to eject
petitioner from said portion.”

Hence, the Supreme Court held:

“Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent course

for the trial court to have taken is to hold the ejectment
proceedings in abeyance until after a determination of the
administrative case. Indeed, logic and pragmatism, if not
jurisprudence, dictate such move. To allow the parties to undergo
trial notwithstanding the possibility of petitioner's right of
possession being upheld in the pending administrative case is to
needlessly require not only the parties but the court as well to
expend time, effort and money in what may turn out to be a sheer
exercise in futility. Thus, 1 Am Jur 2d tells us:
The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise
of a sound discretion, upon proper application for a stay of
that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome
of another pending in another court, especially where the
parties and the issues are the same, for there is power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on
its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants. Where the rights parties to the
second action cannot be properly determined until the
questions raised in the first action are settled the second
action should be stayed. “

Citing the case of Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Celdran, et al., 19 SCRA 502, which was an
analogous situation, the Supreme Court sustained the assailed order of the then Court of First
Instance of Misamis Oriental ordering the suspension of the criminal case for falsification of
public document against several persons, among them the subscribing officer Santiago Catane
until the civil case involving the issue of the genuineness of the alleged forged document shall
have been decided.
The Supreme Court further stated that “if a pending civil case may be considered
to be in the nature of a prejudicial question to an administrative case, it saw no
reason why the reverse may not be so considered in the proper case, such as in
the petition at bar.”