GR 150793; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150793 November 19, 2004
FRANCIS CHUA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA C. HAO, respondents.
FACTS
Lydia Hao, treasurer of Siena Realty Corporation, filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against Francis Chua and his wife. The Information alleged that Chua falsified the Minutes of the corporation’s Annual Stockholders’ Meeting to make it appear Hao was present. During trial at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), after Hao testified as a witness, Chua moved to exclude her private prosecutors, arguing she failed to allege and prove any civil liability. The MeTC granted the motion. Hao then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), impleading both herself and Siena Realty Corporation as petitioners. The RTC reversed the MeTC, ordering the reinstatement of the private prosecutors to handle the civil aspect. Chua’s petition to the Court of Appeals was denied.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the criminal complaint was in the nature of a derivative suit allowing the corporation to be a party; (2) whether Siena Realty was a proper petitioner in the certiorari proceeding; and (3) whether private prosecutors should be allowed to actively participate in the criminal trial.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the criminal action was not a derivative suit. A derivative suit is a civil action pursued by a stockholder for a wrong done to the corporation. The criminal case for falsification was a public offense prosecuted by the State. However, the civil liability arising from the crime could be pursued in the criminal proceeding. On the second issue, the Court held Siena Realty was a proper party in the certiorari petition before the RTC. The corporation had a direct interest in the outcome as the alleged falsification pertained to its corporate records and could affect its interests. Its inclusion was permissible to assert its claim for civil damages. On the third issue, the Court affirmed the allowance of private prosecutors. Since the civil action for damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the offended party, which includes the corporation claiming injury, has the right to be represented by counsel to protect its pecuniary interest. The MeTC’s exclusion of the private prosecutors was therefore a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.