Jimenez vs. Sorongon, et al.

678 SCRA 151 December 5, 2012

FACTS:
Jimenez(Petitioner) is the president of Unlad Shipping and Management Corporation a local
manning agency, while Antzoulatos, Alamil, Gaza and Avgoustis are the respondents herein and are
some of the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services Inc, a local manning agency. In Aug. 19,
2003, Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the office of the prosecutor of Mandaluyong city
against the respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. Respondents Antzoulatos
and Gaza filed their joint counter-affidavit and denying the complaint. Avgoustis and Alamil did not
submit any counter affidavit. An Information for the said crime was filed before the RTC-
Mandaluyong.

On Dec. 4, 2004, the prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information and respondents
Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their comment to the opposition; however, the judge denied the motion
as it found existence of probable cause and issued warrants against the respondents. Respondent
Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause to defer the enforcement of the
warrants or arrest. Petitioner filed his opposition with the motion to expunge, contending that Alamil
being a fugitive from justice had no standing to seek any relief and that the RTC found probable
cause. Respondent filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Umali for being biased or partial. The
said judge voluntarily inhibit herself and the case was re-raffled to Judge Sorongon.

On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing the existence of probable cause
to prosecute the respondents. On April 26, 2006, Alamil moved to expunge the motion for being
prohibited pleading since the motion did not have any conformity from the city prosecutor. In its May
10, 2006 order, the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding that the petitioner
merely reiterated arguments in issues that had been finally decided.

On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the petitioner’s notice of appeal since the
public prosecutor did not authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case. On
June 27, 2006, the petitioner filed his comment to the motion to expunge, claiming that, as the
offended party, he has the right to appeal the RTC order dismissing the case; the respondents’
fraudulent acts in forming TMSI greatly prejudiced him.

ISSUE:
(1) WON the Petitioner has the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the case

HELD:
No. It is well settled that the real party in interest is the People of the Philippines and is
represented by the prosecutors. All criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall
be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases
before the Court of Appeals and before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General is the appellate
counsel of the People; The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the Office of
the Solicitor General can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the Court of
Appeals or in the Supreme Court.

(2) WON Alamil is a fugitive justice and therefore has no right to seek any relief from the RTC?

HELD:
NO. Respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction.
 As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of
the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC seeking the dismissal of the criminal case,
respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Custody of the law is not
required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.