8/13/2019 CRIMPRO Javier v. IAC
1/2
2
G.R. No. 75379 March 31, 1989
JAVIER v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT a! LEON ". GUTIERRE#,
JR.
FACTS: Private respondent issued to the petitioners a check that
was subsequently dishonored and notmade good despite the required
notice of dishonorFor this he has been charged with estafa under
!P!lg "" in the #egional Trial Court of $akati
The information against %eon S &utierre'( )r was filed on
April *( *+,- .Criminal Case /o *--,*0 in the#egional Trial Court
of $akati The civil case was not reserved 1n September -( *+,-(
&utierre' filed acomplaint for damages against the petitioners
in the #egional Trial Court of Catarman( /othern Samar.Civil Case
/o C23--0where the defendants were charged with having inveigled
&utierre' into signingthe very check sub4ect of the criminal
case in the $akati court The complaint in effect e5plains why
heissued the check for which he is now facing prosecution
1n September *6( *+,-( the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
Civil Case /o C23-- on the grounds oflack of a cause of action and
litis pendentiabut was denied on September "7(*+,- 1n the other
hand(the private respondent moved to suspend proceedings in
Criminal Case /o *--,* pending the resolutionof what was claimed to
be the pre4udicial question raised in the civil case The
petitioners filed anopposition which was also denied
Petitioners not having submitted their answer in the civil case(
the private respondent moved to declarethem in default and that he
be allowed to present his evidence ex parte Pending resolution of
this motion(the petitioners moved for reconsideration of the order
denying their motion to dismiss but was denied on/ovember "6(*+,-
1n )anuary 3( *+,8( the petitioners filed a second motion for
reconsideration basedon the original two grounds and alleging the
additional ground of improper venueThe record does not
show if this second motion for reconsideration was acted upon(
but on )anuary *6( *+,8( the respondent4udged declared the
petitioners in default and set the civil case for trial Three days
later( the motion tosuspend proceedings in the #egional Trial Court
of $akati was denied and the criminal case was set forhearing on
the merits
The petitioners went to the 9ntermediate Appellate Court to
question the orders of )udge Cesar # Cincoof the #egional Trial
Court of Catarman( /orthern Samar( denying their motion to dismiss
and theirmotion for reconsideration of the denial Failing to obtain
relief there( they are now before us in thispetition for review
9SS; : :
