G.R. No. 76965 March 11, 1994.
LUIS TAN, WILLIAM S. TAN, JOAQUIN S. TAN and VICENTE S. TAN, petitioners, vs. HON. DAVID G. NITAFAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 52, Manila, and ROSITA B. LIM, in her behalf and as Guardian Ad Litem of her minor children, JENNIFER, LYSANDER and BEVERLIE, all surnamed LIMKETKAI, respondents.

FACTS

On August 25, 1973, Florentino Lim was shot dead. On April 17, 1975, petitioners Luis, William, Joaquin, Vicente, Alfonso, and Eusebio Tan, along with others, were charged with murder before Military Commission No. 1. On June 11, 1976, the Military Commission convicted Luis Tan and five co-accused for murder but acquitted William, Joaquin, Vicente, Alfonso, Eusebio, and Go E Kuan, declaring them “not guilty” without explanation. On February 11, 1983, private respondents (the victim’s family) filed a civil action for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila against all those charged, including the acquitted individuals. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by respondent Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 67029 (minute resolution dated May 24, 1984). Petitioners then filed their answer without raising prescription as a defense. Later, a co-defendant, Mariano Velez, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss based on prescription, arguing that the four-year prescriptive period for an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code had lapsed. Petitioners adopted this ground in an amended answer. Respondent Judge denied Velez’s motion, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 69418 (minute resolution dated March 25, 1985). On January 28, 1986, petitioners filed another motion to dismiss reiterating prescription and lack of cause of action, which was denied by respondent Judge on March 20, 1986, and reconsideration was denied on July 29, 1986. Petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari on January 16, 1987, solely on the ground of prescription.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the civil action for damages on the ground of prescription.

RULING

No, the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found that the issue of prescription had already been resolved. In G.R. No. 69418, the Court, through a minute resolution, had already affirmed the trial court’s ruling that prescription had not yet set in. A minute resolution that denies a petition for lack of merit sustains the challenged order and its legal conclusions. This resolution became the “law of the case” on the issue of prescription, meaning the legal question thus determined will not be reopened. The Court also noted that prescription may be raised in a motion to dismiss only if the complaint shows on its face that the action had prescribed, which was not the situation here as the applicable prescriptive period was dubitable. The trial court had ruled that the prescriptive period was coterminous with the crime of murder (20 years), and the action was filed less than ten years from the accrual of the cause of action. The petition was dismissed.