REYNALDO V. TUANDA et al.
v Sandiganbayan
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the resolution of Sandiganbayan and its
orders denying petitioners' motion for suspension of their arraignment.
Delia Estrellanes and Bartolome Binaohan were as sectoral representatives for
the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental by DILG Secretary Santos.
Then, petitioners filed a petition with the Office of the President for review and
recall of said designations and was denied.
The issue was brought to RTC Dumaguete City arguing Tuanda took advantage
and unlawfully caused injury to the sectoral representatives.
Petitioners filed a motion with Sandiganbayan for suspension of the Criminal
Case on the ground that a prejudicial question exists. The RTC rendered a decision
declaring null and void ab initio the designations issued by DILG for violation of the
provisions saying that the Sanggunian itself must make a determination first of the
number of sectors in the city/municipality to warrant representation.
Sandiganbayan issued a resolution saying that the private respondents have
rendered such services and the said appointments enjoy the presumption of regularity;
for these reasons, the private respondents were entitled to the salaries attached to their
office. Even if the RTC later declare the appointments null and void, they would still be
given salaries because of the period they acted as representatives has made them a de
facto officers.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. It was denied along with the
cancellation of their arraignment, instead Sandiganbayan required Tuanda and the
others to submit a written show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of
court for their failure to appear in court for the day of the arraignment.
The Petitioners argued that the respondent Court committed grave abuse of
discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in effectively allowing
petitioners to be prosecuted under two alternative theories that private respondents are
de jure and/or de facto officers in violation of petitioners' right to due process.
Issue: WON the sectoral representative designations of the respondents are legal.
Held:
Principle of prejudicial question is utilized to avoid two conflicting decisions and has two
fundamental elements:
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
The SC found that that the issue in the civil case, constitutes a valid prejudicial
question to warrant suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings in the
criminal case against petitioners.
All the elements of a prejudicial question are present in this case. The issues
between the civil and criminal case are related. The criminal case was founded on the
partiality and evident bad faith in the non-payment of the Private respondents’ salaries
and per diems. On the other hand, the civil action is on whether or not the designations
were legal.
The court finds no merit on the argument of the sectoral representatives that despite
the nullification of their designations, they are still entitled to the salaries and per diems.
From the start, private respondents' designations as sectoral representatives have
been challenged by petitioners. They served 8 days after oath taking before the petition
to the office of the president. Hence, private respondents' claim that they have actually
rendered services as sectoral representatives has not been established.
The court did not agree with the respondent’s argument that even in the event that
private respondents' designations are finally declared invalid, they may still be
considered de facto public officers entitled to compensation for services actually
rendered.
The conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following:
1) There must be a de jure office;
2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and
3) There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.
Sandiganbayan Resolution was set aside.
