Case # 24 (2nd set)

JM Dominguez Agronomic Company vs Liclican

Facts:

The petitioners filed a civil complaint against respondents for nullification of meetings, election
and acts of directors and officers, injunction and other reliefs. After a failed mediation, it was referred
for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) to RTC 7.

On the proceeding situation, petitioners executed a Complaint Affidavit charging respondents

with Criminal Case of Qualified Theft. A corresponding warrant of arrest was then issued against the
accused.

Consequently, the respondents lodged a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA then grants
the petition assailing that since there is doubt as to the sufficiency of the authority of a corporate officer,
the RTC Judge should have exercised prudence by holding the criminal cases in abeyance pending
resolution of the intra-corporate dispute which private respondents themselves instituted.

Issue:

Whether or not there exists a prejudicial question that could effect the criminal proceedings for
qualified theft against respondents.

Held:

Yes, there is a prejudicial question which must be decided before the qualified theft case may
proceed.

As jurisprudence elucidiates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil

action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be pre-
emptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action
is resolved would be determinative Juris et de Jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.

In the case at bar, the CA aptly observed that the civil case, the intra-corporate dispute, posed a
prejudicial question to the criminal cases of qualified theft. To be sure, the civil case involves the same
parties herein, and is for nullification of JMD’s meetings, election and acts of its directors and officers,
among others. Court intervention was sought to ascertain who between the two contesting group of
officers should rightfully be seated at the company’s helm. Without the civil case’ resolution, petitioners’
authority to commence and prosecuted the criminal cases against respondents for qualified theft in
JMD’s behalf remained questionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings.

Thus, the civil case’ resolution should be issued first before commencing the qualified theft case, as it
pose a prejudicial question that could affect the criminal proceedings.