GR 143419; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143419 ; June 22, 2006
JOSE B. DEL ROSARIO, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose B. del Rosario, Jr., former Administrator of the National Irrigation Administration, was charged before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 22715 for estafa through falsification of public document. The charge originated from a 1991 complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. After initial dismissals, a 1995 Ombudsman resolution led to the filing of the information. Petitioner moved to quash the information, arguing its filing violated procedural rules, but the Sandiganbayan denied his motion. He then filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 131746) before the Supreme Court assailing this denial. However, the Supreme Court dismissed G.R. No. 131746 in a 1999 minute resolution for petitioner’s failure to file a required reply to comment.
Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with the criminal case. During pre-trial, petitioner sought to mark documents from his dismissed petition (G.R. No. 131746) and to raise the issue of the information’s nullity. The prosecution objected, and the Sandiganbayan, in its May 2, 2000 pre-trial order, sustained the objection. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, directly assailing that pre-trial order.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court’s dismissal of G.R. No. 131746 constitutes res judicata, thereby barring petitioner from raising the issue of the information’s nullity and from marking related documents in the criminal case.
RULING
The petition is denied. First, the petition is procedurally infirm. A pre-trial order is an interlocutory order, as it does not finally dispose of the case but pertains to an intervening matter. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order; it is reserved for appealing final judgments or orders that leave nothing more to be done by the court.
Second, on the substantive issue, the doctrine of res judicata applies. Petitioner contends that the dismissal of G.R. No. 131746 was merely for his failure to file a reply and thus not a judgment on the merits. The Court disagrees. A minute resolution dismissing a petition for non-compliance with procedural requirements, such as the failure to file a necessary pleading, constitutes a disposition on the merits. The dismissal of G.R. No. 131746 effectively affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s rulings denying the motion to quash. This dismissal has long become final and executory. Consequently, petitioner is barred from relitigating the very same issue of the information’s validity in the ongoing criminal case. The Sandiganbayan correctly disallowed the marking of documents and the raising of this foreclosed issue during pre-trial.