15 Lim Vs Lim
Uploaded by
mei atienza15 Lim Vs Lim
Uploaded by
mei atienzaRONALD GERALINO M. LIM, petitioner vs. EDWIN M. LIM, respondent.
[G.R. No. 214163. July 1, 2019.]
FACTS: Ronald Geralino M. Lim (Ronald) filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor a
Complaint 5 for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim (Edwin). Acting favorably on the
Complaint, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information 6 against Edwin before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City. On arraignment, Edwin pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. The case was then referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation. But due to the
parties' failure to reach a settlement, the case was referred back to the court. On August 12, 2013, the
case was set for pre-trial. However, because of Ronald's and his counsel's absence, pre-trial was reset
to September 5, 2013.
After Edwin's counsel had filed a Motion for time to submit a counter- affidavit, pre-trial was
again reset to October 17, 2013. At the pre-trial on November 21, 2013, the prosecution, among
others,
moved that they be allowed to submit the Judicial Affidavits of Ronald and their witnesses later that
day. It explained that it had completed the Judicial Affidavits earlier, but "for whatever reason," was
not able to submit them. Despite the defense counsel's insistent opposition, the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities granted the Motion and gave the prosecution until 5:00 p.m. that day to submit the judicial
affidavits. Aggrieved, Edwin moved for reconsideration. He argued that the prosecution was deemed to
have waived its right to submit its Judicial Affidavits when it failed to submit them at least five (5) days
before pre-trial.
In its December 20, 2013 Order, 19 the Municipal Trial Court in Cities denied Edwin's Motion. It
reasoned that since it had already received the Judicial Affidavits and in the interest of justice, its
November 21, 2013 Order stands. Nevertheless, it ordered the prosecution to pay a fine of P1,000.00
for its failure to file the Judicial Affidavits within the period prescribed by the Judicial Affidavit Rule. On
January 29, 2014, Edwin filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. He
contended that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed
the belated filing of the Judicial Affidavits. In its Comment, the prosecution argued that the Regional
Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over them since no summons had been served upon Ronald and
the Office of the Solicitor General. In addition, they contended that a resort to a petition for certiorari
was improper since the remedy of appeal was still available to them.
ISSUE: Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over petitioners Ronald Geralino M. Lim
and People of the Philippines.
HELD: Yes. Petitioners mainly argue that since no summons had been served upon them, the
Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over them. As a result, they insist that the Regional
Trial Court's June 6, 2014 Decision is void. Contrary to petitioners' postulation, summons need not be
issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Under the Rules of Court, there are two (2) types of civil actions: (1) ordinary civil actions; and
(2) special civil actions. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions. However, special civil
actions, such as petitions for certiorari, are further subject to certain specific rules. Rule 65, Section 6
of the Rules of Court states that the court, upon the filing of a petition for certiorari, shall determine if
it is sufficient in form and substance. Once it finds the petition to be sufficient, it shall issue an order
requiring the respondents to comment on the petition.
Compared with an ordinary civil action, where summons must be issued upon the filing of the
complaint, the court need only issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition
for certiorari. "Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct,
together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto." In any case, despite petitioners'
insistence that they were not served with summons, it must be noted that on January 29, 2014, the
Regional Trial Court served the summons and a copy of the Petition on petitioner Ronald, through his
counsel Attorney Alfredo Arungayan III (Atty. Arungayan).
Here, petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court a Comment/Opposition to the prayer for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order 58 on January 30, 2014 and a Comment/Opposition to
the Petition on February 10, 2014. By actively participating in the proceedings, petitioners are deemed
to have made a voluntary appearance and cannot argue that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire
jurisdiction over them.
Finally, petitioners argue that the Office of the Solicitor General should have been served with a
copy of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. However, under the Rules of Court, when a petition
for certiorari is filed assailing an act of a judge, the petitioner in the main action shall be included as a
private respondent, and is then mandated to appear and defend both on his or her own behalf and on
behalf of the public respondent affected by the proceedings. The public respondent shall not be
required to comment on the petition unless required by the court.