PDIC vs. Gidwani

G.R.
234616 | June 20, 2018

Velasco, Jr., J. | Third Division
PDIC, on November 6, 2012, lodged a criminal
complaint before the Department of Justice Task
Force on Financial Fraud (DOJ Task Force) for
estafa through falsification under Art. 315(2)(a)
in relation to Art. 172(1) and 171(4) of the Revised
Penal Code and for money laundering as
defined in Section 4(a) of AMLA against the
Gidwani spouses and 86 other individuals.
DOJ Task Force Undersecretary of
It promulgated a Resolution PDIC filed a petition
for review with the
Justice
dismissing the Complaint. Undersecretary Justiniano
→ Office of the → issued a Resolution (Justiniano
Secretary of
PDIC’s motion for reconsideration: Resolution) denying PDIC's
Justice.
denied. appeal.
Secretary of Justice Manu Gidwani Court of Appeals

SOJ Caparas issued a Resolution It reversed the Caparas
elevated the
Resolution.
(Caparas Resolution) and

overturned the Justiniano → matter to the →
Court of According to the CA, SOJ
Resolution and granted PDIC’s Appeals. Caparas gravely abused his
motion for reconsideration. discretion when he reversed
and set aside the earlier
resolutions of the DOJ Task
Force and of SOJ Justiniano
even though no new evidence
was oﬀered by PDIC to
support its allegations against
Manu et. al.
Whether or not the motion
for reconsideration of PDIC
was valid even though it did
not present new evidence.
Yes.
That no new evidence was offered by PDIC on
reconsideration is irrelevant.
Under Section 13 of Department Circular No. 70 of the
DOJ, otherwise known as the 2000 National Prosecutorial
Service Rule on Appeal (2000 NPS Rules), the party
aggrieved by the ruling of the SOJ during the
preliminary investigation may file a motion for
reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten
(10) days from notice.
However, the 2000 NPS Rules does not specify the

grounds for filing the said motion. In this regard, the Court
refers to the Rules of Court for guidance as it applies
suppletorily (Rule 1, Section 4).
Even though the 2000 NPS Rules is lacking in specifics insofar as the grounds for a
motion for reconsideration is concerned, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court bridges the
breach. Pertinently, Rule 37, Section 1 states:
RULE 37
New Trial or Reconsiderations
 
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.
— Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following
causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the
result.
 
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon
the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is
contrary to law.
A motion for reconsideration may be granted if:
1. the damages awarded are excessive,

2. the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order,
or
3. the decision or final order is contrary to law.
The judicial or quasi-judicial body concerned may arrive at any of

the three enumerated conclusions even without requiring
additional evidence.
The introduction of newly discovered additional evidence is a
ground for:
• new trial or
• a de novo appreciation of the case,
but not for the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Judicial proceedings even prohibit the practice of introducing new
evidence on reconsideration since it potentially deprives the
opposing party of his or her right to due process.
While quasi-judicial bodies in administrative proceedings may

extend leniency in this regard and allow the admission of evidence
offered on reconsideration or on appeal, this is merely
permissive and does not translate to a requirement of
attaching additional evidence to support motions for
reconsideration.
Ancillary issue
After he assumed the position of Acting Secretary
of Justice, can Caparas again make a second
look on the said complaint and act favourably on
PDIC's motion for reconsideration taking into
account that what the latter had presented in its
motion are the same arguments and theories
already threshed out by his predecessor making
its motion as a pro forma motion?
Yes.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not mere formality, but an
opportunity for a judicial or quasi-judicial body to correct imputed errors, in fact
or in law, in its findings and conclusions.
The office of the motion is precisely to grant the investigating body, the DOJ in
this case, the opening to give a second hard look at the matter at hand, and to
determine if its previous ruling is in accord with evidence on record and statute.
In resolving the motion for reconsideration lodged with his office and in
exercising jurisdiction, SOJ Caparas has the power and discretion to make his
own personal assessment of the pleadings and evidence subject of review. He
is not bound by the rulings of his predecessors because there is yet to be a
final resolution of the issue; the matter is still pending before his office after all.
To hold otherwise would render the filing of the motion a futile exercise, and the
recourse, pointless.
G.R. 234616 | June 20, 2018
Velasco, Jr., J. | Third Division

PDIC vs. Gidwani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDIC vs. Gidwani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R.

234616 | June 20, 2018

Secretary of Justice Manu Gidwani Court of Appeals

(Caparas Resolution) and

However, the 2000 NPS Rules does not specify the

1. the damages awarded are excessive,

The judicial or quasi-judicial body concerned may arrive at any of

While quasi-judicial bodies in administrative proceedings may

You might also like