G.R. No. 183014.  August 7, 2013.

THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND

ASEOCHE, represented by its Founding Partner,
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JOSEJINA
C. FRIA, respondent.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Dismissal of Actions;

Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a
trial court judge may immediately dismiss a criminal case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.―Under
Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a trial
court judge may immediately dismiss a criminal case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. x x x
It must, however, be observed that the judge’s power to
immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be warranted
when the lack of probable cause is clear. In De Los Santos-Dio v.
CA, 699 SCRA 614 (2013), the Court illumined that a clear-cut
case of lack of probable cause exists when the records readily
show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime
charged.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; A court ― or any of its officers for
that matter ― which has no jurisdiction over a particular case has
no authority to act at all therein.―Since it is explicitly required
that the subject issuance be made within the scope of a superior
authority’s jurisdiction, it cannot therefore be doubted that the
second element of the crime of Open Disobedience does not exist.
Lest it be misunderstood, a court ― or any of its officers for that
matter ― which has no jurisdiction over a particular case has no
authority to act at all therein. In this light, it cannot be argued
that Atty. Fria had already committed the crime based on the
premise that the Court’s pronouncement as to Branch 203’s lack
of jurisdiction came only after the fact. Verily, Branch 203’s lack
of jurisdiction was not merely a product of the Court’s
pronouncement in Reyes. The said fact is traced to the very
inception of the proceedings and as such, cannot

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
 259

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 259

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

be accorded temporal legal existence in order to indict Atty. Fria

for the crime she stands to be prosecuted.
Same; Same; Same; Grave Abuse of Discretion; It is well-
settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
“capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.”―In fine, based on the above-stated reasons,
the Court holds that no grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to the MTC as correctly found by the RTC. It is well-
settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
“capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all
in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”
Consequently, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack
of probable cause is hereby sustained.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolution and

order of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City,
Br. 276.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Don Carlo R. Ybañez for petitioner.

PERLAS-BERNABE,  J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (RTC), through
a petition for review on certiorari,1 raising a pure question
of law. In particular, petitioner The Law Firm of Chavez
Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm) assails the
Resolution2

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 31-61.
2  Id., at pp. 9-10; Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG.
Villanueva.

260
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

dated January 8, 2008 and Order3 dated May 16, 2008 of

the RTC in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096, upholding the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable
cause.
The Facts
On July 31, 2006, an Information4 was filed against
respondent Atty. Josejina C. Fria (Atty. Fria), Branch
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City, Branch 203 (Branch 203), charging her for the crime
of Open Disobedience under Article 2315 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). The accusatory portion of the said
information reads:

The undersigned 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor accuses

ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA of the crime of Viol. of Article
231 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 2nd day of February, 2006, or on
dates subsequent thereto, in the City of Muntinlupa,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, a public officer she being
the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 203, Muntinlupa City, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously refused openly, without any
legal justification to obey the order of the said court which
is of superior authority, for the issuance of a writ of
execution which is her ministerial duty to do so in

_______________
3 Id., at pp. 27-28.
4 Id., at p. 243.
5 Article 231 of the RPC reads:
ART.  231.  Open Disobedience.—Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly
refuse to execute the judgment, decision, or order of any superior authority made
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal
formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in
its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

261

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 261

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

Civil Case No. 03-110 entitled Charles Bernard Reyes,

doing business under the name and style CBH Reyes
 Architects vs. Spouses Cesar and Mely Esquig and
Rosemarie Papas, which has become final and executory
since February 2, 2006, despite requests therefor, if only to
execute/enforce said decision dated July 29, 2005 rendered
within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all the
legal formalities, to the damage and prejudice of the
plaintiff thereof.
Contrary to law.
Muntinlupa City, July 31, 2006.6

Based on the records, the undisputed facts are as

follows:
The Law Firm was engaged as counsel by the plaintiff in
Civil Case No. 03-110 instituted before Branch 203.7 On
July 29, 2005, judgment was rendered in favor of the
plaintiff (July 29, 2005 judgment), prompting the
defendant in the same case to appeal. However, Branch 203
disallowed the appeal and consequently ordered that a writ
of execution be issued to enforce the foregoing judgment.8
Due to the denial of the defendant’s motion for
reconsideration, the July 29, 2005 judgment became final
and executory.9
In its Complaint-Affidavit10 dated February 12, 2006,
The Law Firm alleged that as early as April 4, 2006, it had
been following up on the issuance of a writ of execution to
implement the July 29, 2005 judgment. However, Atty.
Fria vehemently refused to perform her ministerial duty of
issuing said writ.
In her Counter-Affidavit11 dated June 13, 2006, Atty.
Fria posited that the draft writ of execution (draft writ)
was not

_______________
6  Rollo, p. 243.
7  Id., at p. 34.
8  Id., at p. 36.
9  Id., at pp. 36-37.
10 Id., at pp. 192-200.
11 Id., at pp. 202-208.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

addressed to her but to Branch Sheriff Jaime Felicen

(Felicen), who was then on leave. Neither did she know
who the presiding judge would appoint as special sheriff on
Felicen’s behalf.12 Nevertheless, she maintained that she
need not sign the draft writ since on April 18, 2006, the
presiding judge issued an Order stating that he himself
shall sign and issue the same.13
On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a
Memorandum14 recommending, inter alia, that Atty. Fria
be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. The
corresponding Information was thereafter filed before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80
(MTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 46400.
The Proceedings Before the MTC
On September 4, 2006, Atty. Fria filed a Motion for
Determination of Probable Cause15 (motion) which The
Law Firm opposed16 on the ground that the Rules on
Criminal Procedure do not empower trial courts to review
the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and that such
rules only give the trial court judge the duty to determine
whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued against
the accused.
Pending resolution of her motion, Atty. Fria filed a
Manifestation with Motion17 dated November 17, 2006,
stating that the Court had rendered a Decision in the case
of Reyes v. Balde II (Reyes)18 — an offshoot of Civil Case
No. 03-110 —

_______________
12 Id., at pp. 204-205.
13 Id., at p. 206.
14  Id., at pp. 237-242. Issued by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Leopoldo B. Macinas and approved by City Prosecutor Edward M.
Togonon.
15 Id., at pp. 246-250.
16 Id., at pp. 264-281. See Opposition dated October 10, 2006.
17 Id., at pp. 282-286.
18 G.R. No. 168384, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 186.

263

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 263

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

wherein it was held that Branch 203 had no jurisdiction

over the foregoing civil case.19 In response, The Law Firm
filed its Comment/Opposition,20 contending that Atty. Fria
already committed the crime of Open Disobedience 119
days before the Reyes ruling was rendered and hence, she
remains criminally liable for the afore-stated charge.
In an Omnibus Order21 dated January 25, 2007, the
MTC ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for
lack of probable cause. It found that aside from the fact
that Atty. Fria is a judicial officer, The Law Firm failed to
prove the existence of the other elements of the crime of
Open Disobedience.22 In particular, the second element of
the crime, i.e., that there is a judgment, decision, or order
of a superior authority made within the scope of its
jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities, unlikely
existed since the Court already declared as null and void
the entire proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-110 due to lack
of jurisdiction. In this regard, the MTC opined that such
nullification worked retroactively to warrant the dismissal
of the case and/or acquittal of the accused at any stage of
the proceedings.23
Dissatisfied, The Law Firm moved for reconsideration24
which was, however, denied in a Resolution25 dated July
13, 2007. Accordingly, it elevated the matter on certiorari.26

_______________
19 Id., at pp. 196-197.
20 Rollo, pp. 287-294. Filed on December 21, 2006.
21 Id., at pp. 296-304. Penned by Presiding Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos.
22 Id., at p. 302.
23 Id., at p. 303.
24 Id., at pp. 305-319. Motion for Reconsideration dated February 19,
2007.
25 Id., at pp. 295 and 330.
26 Id., at pp. 335-366.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

The RTC Ruling

In a Resolution27 dated January 8, 2008, the RTC
affirmed the MTC’s ruling, finding no grave abuse of
discretion on the latter’s part since its dismissal of
Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause was “in
full accord with the law, facts, and jurisprudence.”28
Aggrieved, The Law Firm filed a Motion for
Reconsideration29 which was equally denied by the RTC in
an Order30 dated May 16, 2008. Hence, the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
 The essential issue in this case is whether or not the
RTC erred in sustaining the MTC’s dismissal of the case for
Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria, i.e., Criminal Case
No. 46400, for lack of probable cause.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, a trial court judge may immediately dismiss a
criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause, viz.:

Sec.  5.  When warrant of arrest may issue.—(a) By the

Regional Trial Court.—Within ten (10) days from the filing
of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to

_______________
27 Id., at pp. 9-10.
28 Id., at p. 10. Dated January 30, 2008.
29 Id., at pp. 11-26.
30 Id., at pp. 27-28.

265

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 265

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he

shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant
issued by the judge who conducted preliminary
investigation or when the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on
the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5)
days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint
of information. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It must, however, be observed that the judge’s power to

immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be
warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. In De
Los Santos-Dio v. CA,31 the Court illumined that a clear-
cut case of lack of probable cause exists when the records
readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts
which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of
the crime charged, viz.:
 While a judge’s determination of probable cause is
generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest
warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may
immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause x x x.
In this regard, so as not to transgress the public
prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that the judge’s
dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut
cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to
establish probable cause — that is when the records
readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established
facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the
elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the
evidence on record

_______________
31 G.R. Nos. 178947 and 179079, June 26, 2013, 699 SCRA 614.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has
been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of
the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and
thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful
cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to
order the presentation of additional evidence.
In other words, once the information is filed with the
court and the judge proceeds with his primordial task of
evaluating the evidence on record, he may either: (a) issue a
warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b)
immediately dismiss the case, if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause; and (c)
order the prosecutor to submit additional evidence, in case
he doubts the existence of probable cause.32 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

Applying these principles to the case at bar would lead

to the conclusion that the MTC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack
of probable cause. The dismissal ought to be sustained
since the records clearly disclose the unmistakable absence
of the integral elements of the crime of Open Disobedience.
While the first element, i.e., that the offender is a judicial
or executive officer, concurs in view of Atty. Fria’s position
as Branch Clerk of Court, the second and third elements of
the crime evidently remain wanting.
To elucidate, the second element of the crime of Open
Disobedience is that there is a judgment, decision, or order
of a superior authority made within the scope of its
jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities. In this
case, it is undisputed that all the proceedings in Civil Case
No. 03-110 have been regarded as null and void due to
Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction over the said case. This
fact has been finally settled in Reyes where the Court
decreed as follows:

_______________
32 Id.

267

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 267

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant

petition is DENIED. x  x  x The Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203
is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from proceeding with
Civil Case No. 03-110 and all the proceedings therein
are DECLARED NULL AND VOID. x  x  x The Presiding
Judge of the Regional trial Court of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 203 is further DIRECTED to dismiss Civil Case No.
03-110 for lack of jurisdiction.33 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Hence, since it is explicitly required that the subject

issuance be made within the scope of a superior authority’s
jurisdiction, it cannot therefore be doubted that the second
element of the crime of Open Disobedience does not exist.
Lest it be misunderstood, a court ― or any of its officers for
that matter ― which has no jurisdiction over a particular
case has no authority to act at all therein. In this light, it
cannot be argued that Atty. Fria had already committed
the crime based on the premise that the Court’s
pronouncement as to Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction came
only after the fact. Verily, Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction
was not merely a product of the Court’s pronouncement in
Reyes. The said fact is traced to the very inception of the
proceedings and as such, cannot be accorded temporal legal
existence in order to indict Atty. Fria for the crime she
stands to be prosecuted.
 Proceeding from this discussion, the third element of the
crime, i.e., that the offender, without any legal justification,
openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision, or
order, which he is duty bound to obey, cannot equally exist.
Indubitably, without any jurisdiction, there would be no
legal order for Atty. Fria to implement or, conversely,
disobey. Besides, as the MTC correctly observed, there lies
ample legal

_______________
33 Supra note 18, at p. 197.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

justifications that prevented Atty. Fria from immediately

issuing a writ of execution.34
In fine, based on the above-stated reasons, the Court
holds that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to
the MTC as correctly found by the RTC. It is well-settled
that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
“capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of
a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility.”35
Consequently, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for
lack of probable cause is hereby sustained.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
Resolution dated January 8, 2008 and Order dated May 16,
2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 276 in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez,

JJ., concur.

Petition denied, resolution and order affirmed.

Notes.―Any judgment of the court which has no

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and
void. (Afdal vs. Carlos, 636 SCRA 389 [2010])
 _______________
34 Rollo, pp. 303-304.
35 Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341,
348.

269

VOL. 703, AUGUST 7, 2013 269

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche vs. Fria

The court’s first option under Section 6, Rule 112 of the

Rules of Court is for it to “immediately dismiss the case if
the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause”; It is only “in case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause” that the judge may order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence within five days from notice.
(People vs. Dela Torre-Yadao, 685 SCRA 264 [2012])
――o0o――

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.