G.R. No. 195198 & 197098; February 11, 2013
LORELI LIM PO and ANTONIO NG CHIU, Petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS, and JASPER T. TAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jasper T. Tan, a stockholder of Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc. (CHVI), filed a criminal complaint against its President, Antonio Ng Chiu, and alleged accountant/consultant Loreli Lim Po for violating the Corporation Code. Tan alleged that his repeated demands to inspect CHVI’s corporate books and records were unjustly refused for roughly ten months. The City Prosecutor found probable cause, ruling that Tan’s right as a stockholder to inspect records covering all business transactions was unlawfully withheld, and that limited, belated inspections did not constitute compliance.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially reversed but ultimately affirmed the finding of probable cause. Petitioners separately filed Petitions for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed Loreli Lim Po’s petition on technical grounds for failure to provide proper proof of service as required by the Rules of Court. Antonio Ng Chiu’s petition was denied on its merits, with the CA finding no grave abuse of discretion in the DOJ’s resolution affirming the finding of probable cause.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the CA correctly dismissed Loreli Lim Po’s petition for certiorari on technical grounds. (2) Whether the CA correctly upheld the DOJ’s finding of probable cause against Antonio Ng Chiu.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions. On the first issue, strict compliance with procedural rules on proof of service is mandatory. Po’s attached affidavit of service lacked the required details on the date, place, and manner of service. Registry receipts alone are insufficient to prove service by registered mail, as they do not establish actual receipt. The CA correctly dismissed her petition for these procedural lapses, as rules of procedure are tools to ensure the orderly administration of justice.
On the second issue, the Court found no error in the CA’s ruling. A finding of probable cause merely requires sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The evidence showed Tan’s right to inspect under Section 74 of the Corporation Code was impeded. The alleged inspections were limited and delayed, and petitioners failed to substantiate full compliance. The DOJ’s affirmation of the prosecutor’s finding, which is based on a preliminary investigation, was within its authority and supported by evidence. Certiorari does not lie to correct errors of judgment absent a clear showing of caprice or arbitrariness, which was not present here.