G.R. No. 183014; August 7, 2013
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, vs. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm), counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 03-110 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Josejina C. Fria, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 203. The complaint, which led to the filing of an Information dated July 31, 2006, charged Atty. Fria with Open Disobedience under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code. The accusation stemmed from her alleged willful refusal, despite requests, to perform her ministerial duty of issuing a writ of execution to enforce a July 29, 2005 judgment in Civil Case No. 03-110, which had become final and executory.
In her defense, Atty. Fria stated in her Counter-Affidavit that the draft writ of execution was addressed to Branch Sheriff Jaime Felicen, who was on leave, and that she did not know who would be appointed as special sheriff. She also maintained that she did not need to sign the draft writ because the presiding judge had issued an Order on April 18, 2006, stating that he himself would sign and issue it.
Pending the criminal case, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision in Reyes v. Balde II (an offshoot of Civil Case No. 03-110), declaring that RTC Branch 203 had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 03-110 and nullifying its entire proceedings. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), in an Omnibus Order dated January 25, 2007, dismissed Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. The MTC found that one essential element of Open Disobedience—that the order disobeyed was issued by a superior authority within the scope of its jurisdiction and with all legal formalities—was absent due to the Supreme Court’s nullification of the underlying civil case for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s dismissal. The Law Firm elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in sustaining the Metropolitan Trial Court’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the dismissal of the criminal case. The Court held that the RTC did not err in sustaining the MTC’s dismissal for lack of probable cause.
The Court reiterated that under Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. This power is exercised in clear-cut cases where uncontroverted facts unmistakably negate the existence of the crime’s elements.
Applying this to the case, the Court found that the crime of Open Disobedience under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code requires, among other elements, that the judgment, decision, or order of the superior authority was made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Reyes v. Balde II, which declared RTC Branch 203 devoid of jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 03-110 and nullified all its proceedings, retroactively invalidated the July 29, 2005 judgment that Atty. Fria was allegedly ordered to execute. Consequently, the order she was accused of disobeying could not be considered a valid order issued by a superior authority within its jurisdiction. This nullification negated an essential element of the crime charged. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause, justifying the immediate dismissal of the criminal case by the MTC, as affirmed by the RTC.