PROCEDURAL CASES

Filing of a criminal complaint with the prosecutor by a foreign corporation

G.R. No. 143193 June 29, 2005

MELBAROSE R. SASOT and ALLANDALE R. SASOT, petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, The Honorable court of of appeals, and REBECCA G.
SALVADOR, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 1, Manila, respondents.

1. WHETHER A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT ENGAGED AND LICENSE (sic) TO DO

BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES MAY MAINTAIN A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR
COMPETITION.

2. WHETHER AN OFFICER OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION MAY ACT IN BEHALF OF A

CORPORATION WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

3. WHETHER A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AND WHOSE

EMBLEM IT SOUGHT TO PROTECT IS NOT IN ACTUAL USE IS ENTITLED TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE PHILIPPINE LAW.

4. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY ASSUMED

JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AND THE PERSONS OF THE ACCUSED.

5. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION.17

The Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy
to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.20 The proper procedure in such a case
is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special
defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision
is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.21 Thus, petitioners should not
have forthwith filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should have gone
to trial and reiterate the special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or
exceptional circumstances22 in the present case such that immediate resort to a filing of a petition
for certiorarishould be permitted. Clearly, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the petition.

For another, under Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaint is
substantially sufficient if it states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by
complainant’s affidavit and his witnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn to
before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their
absence or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants
and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. All these have
been duly satisfied in the complaint filed before Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez. It
must be noted that even the absence of an oath in the complaint does not necessarily render it
invalid.24 Want of oath is a mere defect of form, which does not affect the substantial rights of the
defendant on the merits.25

===============================

A Corporation’s claim for damages in libel cases

G.R. No. 141994 January 17, 2005

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., petitioner,

vs.
AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,
(AMEC-BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents.

I. WHETHER THE BROADCASTS ARE LIBELOUS;

II. WHETHER AMEC IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES;

III. WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IS PROPER; and

IV. WHETHER FBNI IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH RIMA AND ALEGRE FOR PAYMENT OF
MORAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT.

A libel23 is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or
circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegre’s remarks such
as "greed for money on the part of AMEC’s administrators"; "AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage of
xxx moral and physical misfits"; and AMEC students who graduate "will be liabilities rather than
assets" of the society are libelous per se. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a
money-making institution where physically and morally unfit teachers abound.