G.R. No. 207041 , November 9, 2015
People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Roxas City, Petitioner, vs. Jesus A. Arrojado, Respondent.

FACTS

An Information dated March 23, 2009, was filed charging respondent Jesus A. Arrojado with murder by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-75-09. On June 16, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information on the ground that the investigating prosecutor who filed it failed to indicate the number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922. Petitioner filed an opposition, arguing the Information was sufficient in form and substance, and that an administrative edict should not prevail over substantive or procedural law. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City issued an Order dated July 2, 2009, dismissing the Information without prejudice. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated July 23, 2009. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated September 8, 2011, denied the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders. The CA also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 18, 2013. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari was filed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate her MCLE compliance number and date of issuance in the Information warranted its dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that an Information is considered a pleading under Bar Matter No. 1922, which required practicing members of the bar to indicate their MCLE Certificate details in all pleadings filed before courts or quasi-judicial bodies, with failure resulting in dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings. The Court agreed with the CA’s reasoning that an Information is an initiatory pleading as it contains the cause of action of the State against the accused. The Court further ruled that the RTC’s dismissal, based on a clear provision of a Court rule, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari. The Court noted that the dismissal was without prejudice, and the prosecution could have simply re-filed the Information with the required MCLE details to avoid delay. The Court also pointed out that while not in effect at the time, a subsequent En Banc Resolution dated January 14, 2014, amended Bar Matter No. 1922, so that failure to disclose MCLE information would no longer cause dismissal but would subject the counsel to penalty and disciplinary action. However, under the rule applicable at the time of filing, the dismissal was proper.