CRIMPRO SEC.

5, RULE 110; Control and Direction of Prosecution

Title GR No. 178607
JIMENEZ v. SORONGON Date: 5 December 2012
Ponente: BRION, J.
DANTE LA. JIMENEZ, in his capacity as President and HON. EDWIN SORONGON (in his capacity as Presiding Judge
representative of UNLAD SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT of Branch 214 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong
CORPORATION, Petitioner, City), SOCRATES ANTZOULATOS, CARMEN ALAMIL,
MARCELl GAZA and MARKOS AVGOUSTIS, Respondents.

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court.

FACTS
Case timeline:

1. The petitioner is the president of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation, a local manning agency, while
respondents are some of the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc. (TMSI), another local manning
agency.
2. August 19, 2003- the petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment. The petitioner alleged that the respondents falsely represented their
stockholdings in TMSI’s articles of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA)..
3. 4 May 2004- The City Prosecutor approved the recommendation to file an information for syndicated and large
scale illegal recruitment by the Asst. Prosecutor and filed the corresponding criminal information with the RTC.
4. December 14, 2004- the City Prosecutor reconsidered the May 4, 2004 resolution and filed a motion with the RTC
to withdraw the information. The motion was denied.
5. The respondents moved for judicial determination of probable cause. The motion was denied on the ground that
the same was already found by the court prior. Respondent moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of
the FIRST JUDGE.
6. FIRST JUDGE inhibited. The motion for reconsideration was not resolved. The SECOND JUDGE granted the motion
for reconsideration. The case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The petitioner moved for reconsideration.
The respondent filed a motion to expunge (ie. remove/ erase) on the ground that it is a prohibited pleading for
being made without the conformity of the public prosecutor. RTC dismissed the reconsideration.
7. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Respondents filed motion to expunge for lack of prosecutor’s conformity. RTC
dismissed the notice on the ground that to be valid, it must be with the OSG’s conformity (since it is an appeal to
CA).
8. Petitioner filed an appeal for certiorari with the CA assailing the orders of the RTC. CA dismissed the petition on
the ground that it had no legal standing since only the OSG has a right to represent the People.

PETITIONERS’ contentions:
1. The petitioner argues that he has a legal standing to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since he is the private
complainant and a real party in interest who had been directly damaged and prejudiced by the respondents’
illegal acts;
ISSUE/S
I. WON the petitioners has a legal standing. -NO
RATIO
It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest[,]" "who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit."

Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. When the plaintiff
or the defendant is not a real party in interest, the suit is dismissible.

Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor." (RULE 110, SEC. 5)

In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant
to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code.

RULING
Petition is OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED.
Notes
SEC. 5, RULE 110: All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the DIRECTION
and CONTROL of the prosecutor.
CABRITO
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_178607_2012.html