View full case

CONCEPCION CUENCO VDA. DE MANGUERRA v. RAUL RISOS

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) to set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) orders. The respondent, Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, filed a motion to take deposition due to her weak physical condition and old age. This was in relation to a criminal case filed against respondents Raul G. Risos, Susana Yongco, Leah Abarquez, and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje, arising from the falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage. The RTC granted Concepcion's motion, but the CA declared the orders invalid, stating that the examination of prosecution witnesses is governed by a specific provision in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and not the Rules of Court. The CA also noted the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party in the petition. However, the CA allowed the petition to proceed in the interest of substantial justice. The Supreme Court is now presented with issues regarding the applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondents.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of the petitioner.

  2. Whether or not failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case constitutes a waivable defect in the petition for certiorari.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the deposition of the petitioner. The examination of prosecution witnesses in a criminal case is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The CA declared that Concepcion's deposition should have been taken before the judge or the court where the case is pending, which is the RTC of Cebu, and not before the Clerk of Court of Makati City. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to take deposition.

  2. The CA recognized that failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case is a defect. However, the CA allowed the petition to proceed in the interest of substantial justice. The CA also noted that despite the non-joinder of the People of the Philippines as party-respondent, it was able to file its Comment on the petition for certiorari through the Office of the Solicitor General. This gave the People the opportunity to refute the respondents' arguments.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Examination of prosecution witnesses in a criminal case is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  • Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court at any stage of the action.