Banares vs Balising

G.R. No. 132624

March 13, 2000

Petitioners: FIDEL M. BAÑARES II, LILIA C. VALERIANO,

EDGAR M. BAÑARES, EMILIA GATCHALIAN and FIDEL
BESARINO
Respondents: ELIZABETH BALISING, ROGER ALGER,
MERLINDA CAPARIC, EUSTAQUIO R. TEJONES, ANDREA
SAYAM, JENNY ISLA, WILMA ROGATERO, PABLITO
ALEGRIA, ROLANDO CANON, EDITHA ESTORES, EDMUNDO
DOROYA, TERESITA GUION, DANNY ANDARAYAN,
LOURDES CADAY, ROGELIO MANO, EVANGELINE CABILTES
AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF RIZAL, Antipolo, Rizal.

Topic:

Facts:

Petitioners Fidel M. Bañares II, Lilia C. Valeriano, Edgar M.

Bañares, Emilia Gatchialian and Fidel Besarino were the
accused in sixteen criminal cases for estafa filed by the private
respondents.

After the petitioners were arraigned and entered their plea of not
guilty, they filed a Motion to Dismiss the aforementioned cases
on the ground that the filing of the same was premature, in view of
the failure of the parties to undergo conciliation proceedings
before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo,
Rizal. Petitioners averred that since they lived in the same
barangay as private respondents, and the amount involved in
each of the cases did not exceed Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00),
the said cases were required under Section 412 in relation to
Section 408 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section
18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to be
referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo of the barangay concerned for conciliation
proceedings before being filed in court.

The municipal trial court issued an Order denying petitioners'

motion to dismiss on the ground that they failed to seasonably
invoke the non-referral of the cases to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. It added that
such failure to invoke non-referral of the case to the Lupon
amounted to a waiver by petitioners of the right to use the said
ground as basis for dismissing the cases.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the

aforementioned Order, claiming that nowhere in the Revised
Rules of Court is it stated that the ground of prematurity shall be
deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.

The municipal trial court issued an Order dismissing the sixteen

criminal cases against petitioners without prejudice, pursuant to
Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

More than two months later, private respondents through

counsel, filed a motion to revive the abovementioned criminal
cases against petitioners, stating that the requirement of referral
to the Lupon for conciliation had already been complied
with. Attached to the motion was a Certification from the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo, Rizal stating that
the parties appeared before said body regarding the charges of
estafa filed by private respondents against petitioners but they
failed to reach an amicable settlement with respect thereto.
Petitioners filed a comment and opposition to motion to revive
claiming that the Order of the municipal trial court dismissing
the cases had long become final and executory; hence, private
respondents should have re-filed the cases instead of filing a
motion to revive.
The municipal trial court issued an Order granting private
respondents' motion to revive. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforementioned Order which was denied by
the municipal trial court.

Petitioners thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of

Antipolo, Rizal, a petition for certiorari, injunction and prohibition
assailing the Order of the municipal trial court. They claimed that
the said Order dismissing the criminal cases against them had
long become final and executory considering that the prosecution
did not file any motion for reconsideration of said Order. In
response thereto, private respondents filed their
Comment, arguing that the motion to revive the said cases was in
accordance with law, particularly Section 18 of the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure.

After the parties submitted additional pleadings to support their

respective contentions, the regional trial court rendered the
assailed decision denying the petition for certiorari, injunction and
prohibition, stating that since the dismissal of said cases was
without prejudice, the questioned order has not attained finality at
all.

The regional trial court, likewise, denied petitioners' motion for

reconsideration of the aforementioned decision for lack of merit.

Issue:

WON

Ruling:

Petitioners' contentions are meritorious.

A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one which

disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done
but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the
court. As distinguished there from, an "interlocutory order" is
one which does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves
something more to be adjudicated upon.

This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a

case without prejudice is a final order if no motion for
reconsideration or appeal there from is timely filed.

The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days

from his receipt of the court's decision or order disposing of the
action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the same.

After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes final

and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court
which rendered it to further amend or revoke. A final judgment or
order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification
sought is for the purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion
by the court which rendered the same.

After the order of dismissal of a case without prejudice has

become final, and therefore becomes outside the court's power to
amend and modify, a party who wishes to reinstate the case has
no other remedy but to file a new complaint.

Contrary to private respondents' claim, the foregoing rule applies

not only to civil cases but to criminal cases as well. In Jaca
vs. Blanco, the Court defined a provisional dismissal of a criminal
case as a dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof
before the order of dismissal becomes final or to the subsequent
filing of a new information for the offense.

Thus, the regional trial court erred when it denied the petition
for certiorari, injunction and prohibition and ruled that the order of
the municipal trial court dismissing without prejudice the criminal
cases against petitioners had not attained finality and hence,
could be reinstated by the mere filing of a motion to revive.

Equally erroneous is private respondents' contention that the

rules regarding finality of judgments under the Revised Rules of
Court do not apply to cases covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. Private respondents claim that Section 18
of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure allows the
revival of cases which were dismissed for failure to submit the
same to conciliation at the barangay level, as required under
Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local Government
Code.

There is nothing in the aforecited provision which supports private

respondents' view. Section 18 merely states that when a case
covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is
dismissed without prejudice for non-referral of the issues to the
Lupon, the same may be revived only after the dispute subject of
the dismissed case is submitted to barangay conciliation as
required under the Local Government Code. There is no
declaration to the effect that said case may be revived by mere
motion even after the fifteen-day period within which to appeal or
to file a motion for reconsideration has lapsed.

It is but logical to infer that the foregoing principle also applies to

cases subject to summary procedure especially since the
objective of the Rule governing the same is precisely to settle
these cases expeditiously. To construe Section 18 thereof as
allowing the revival of dismissed cases by mere motion even
after the lapse of the period for appealing the same would
prevent the courts from settling justiciable controversies
with finality, thereby undermining the stability of our judicial
system.