September 11, 2002
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS
Hernani Fabia used to be the president of Maritime Training Center Philippines (MTCP). Exequiel Tamayo, MTCP's current president, accused Fabia of making cash advances from the corporation amounting to P1.29M which he failed to liquidate despite demand, and that Fabia also allegedly secured funds for the purpose of procuring office equipment and materials which upon inventory failed to materialize.
As such, MTCP filed a criminal action for estafa against Fabia.
What followed next was a lengthy series of proceedings to determine which court or adminitrative agency had jurisdiction over the case. In November 1997, the CA directed the filing of an Information for estafa against Fabia before the RTC of Manila.
However, in its resolution on February 9, 1998, the SC held that the criminal action filed against Fabia involved an intra-corporate dispute over which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction and not the regular courts.
On August 20, 2001, the Court reversed its initial resolution and held that, in light of the amendment of PD 902-A by the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799), jurisdiction over all cases formerly cognizable by the SEC (i.e., intra-corporate disputes) is now vested upon the RTCs. As such, the SC ruled that the action filed against Fabia pending before the SEC be transferred to the RTC of Manila.
On October 9, 2001, MTCP filed a Motion for Clarification of Judgment, praying that the RTC of Manila that will hear Fabia's criminal case be directed to arraign him, try the case, and render judgment thereon.
Fabia opposed said motion, arguing that the SC's resolution in 1998 was akin to the dismissal of the estafa case filed against him and that the matter was purely an intra-corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the SEC. He also contended that the amendment on the jurisdiction of the SEC and RTCs pertaining to intra-corporate disputes as embodied in RA 8799 did not have a retroactive effect.
Fabia also argued that even if the RTC of Manila were vested with the jurisdiction to hear the estafa case filed against him, such charge cannot prosper because no finding of probable cause may be made against him during a preliminary investigation as a question of accounting still existed between him and MTCP.
RULING
The decision of the CA in 1997 directing the filing of an Information for estafa against Fabia is affirmed. RTC of Manila to which the criminal case of estafa was previously raffled and assigned is directed to immediately arraign Fabia and try his case until decided and terminated.
Whether a civil/intra-corporate dispute pending before the SEC can be filed and heard alongside a criminal case arising from the same facts. – YES.
These incidents are cognizable not only by the then intra-corporate jurisdiction of the SEC but could also very well fall within the criminal jurisdiction of the regular courts. The acts charged may be in the nature of an intra-corporate dispute as they involve fraud committed by virtue of the office assumed by Fabia as President and stockholder in MTCP, and committed against the MTCP corporation, and therefore violative of SEC rules and regulations.
In the same vein, the alleged fraudulent acts constitute the elements of abuse of confidence, deceit or fraudulent means, and damage under Art. 315 of The Revised Penal Code on estafa. In this case, the relationship of the party-litigants with each other or the position held by petitioner as a corporate officer in respondent MTCP during the time he committed the crime becomes merely incidental and holds no bearing on jurisdiction. What is essential is that the fraudulent acts are likewise of a criminal nature and hence cognizable by the regular courts.
In light of the amendment brought about by RA 8799, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case.
The fraudulent devices, schemes or representations which, originally, the Prosecution and Enforcement Department of the SEC would exclusively investigate and prosecute, are those in violation of any law or rules and regulations administered and enforced by the SEC and shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of The Revised Penal Code. Hence, if the fraudulent act is punished under The Revised Penal Code, like estafa under Art. 315, the responsible person may be criminally prosecuted before the regular courts in addition to proceedings before the branches of the RTC designated by this Court to try and decide intra-corporate controversies.
Therefore, since the alleged fraudulent acts committed by petitioner pertaining to the non-liquidation of his cash advances amounting to P1,291,376.61 constitute the offense of estafa under Art. 315 of The Revised Penal Code, the criminal case may be prosecuted independently.
Whether Fabia can be arraigned for estafa even when there is as yet no proper accounting of the amount owing from him. – YES.
Prior accounting is not an element of estafa; therefore, its absence would not preclude the finding of probable cause for estafa against Fabia. In fact, accounting does not seem to be inexistent in this case, as the records show that it has been conducted on two (2) occasions by two (2) separate entities - the auditing firm of Mendoza Ignacio Corvera and Company, and MTCP's own Treasurer, only that Fabia deems it defective due to the divergent amounts computed by the two (2) entities as allegedly owed by him.
In the present case, the only issue is whether or not there is probable cause to warrant the filing of the Information for estafa. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Thus a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.
DOCTRINE
In intra-corporate disputes, the imposition of
administrative sanctions shall be without prejudice to the filing of
criminal charges against the individuals responsible for the violation.
As such, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer precludes the
simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case.
