G.R. No. 110544 . October 17, 1995.
REYNALDO V. TUANDA, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), BARTOLOME BINAOHAN and DELIA ESTRELLANES, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Bartolome Binaohan and Delia Estrellanes were designated as sectoral representatives to the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, by the Secretary of the Department of Local Government in February 1989. Petitioners, the municipal mayor and members of the Sangguniang Bayan, refused to recognize them and withheld their corresponding per diems and salaries. This refusal prompted private respondents to file a mandamus action for recognition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, petitioners filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 9955) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City seeking to declare the designations null and void for lack of the prior determination and consultation required by the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337).
While the civil case was pending, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 16936) charging petitioners with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly causing undue injury to the private respondents by refusing to pay their salaries and benefits. Petitioners moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, invoking the existence of a prejudicial question, as the resolution of the civil case would determine the validity of the private respondents’ right to the office and the claimed compensation.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings based on a prejudicial question.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. A prejudicial question exists when a civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in a pending criminal case, and the resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed. The elements are: (1) the civil action must be prior to the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of the issue in the civil action is determinative of the accused’s guilt or innocence in the criminal case.
Here, the pending civil action for the annulment of the designations squarely poses a prejudicial question. The criminal charge for graft is predicated on the accused’s alleged unlawful refusal to pay salaries to individuals claimed to be rightful sectoral representatives. If the civil court declares the designations null and void ab initio, as it subsequently did in a decision rendered during the pendency of this petition, then private respondents were never lawful officers entitled to compensation. Consequently, petitioners’ refusal to pay would not constitute evident bad faith or manifest partiality under R.A. No. 3019 . The Sandiganbayan’s theory that private respondents could be considered de facto officers entitled to pay was erroneous, as de facto officership requires a de jure office, which was absent given the nullity of the designations from the outset. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan should have suspended the criminal proceedings pending the final outcome of the civil case.