Fortich-Celdran vs.

Celdran

A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
 In prejudicial question matters, there are always two cases involved, a civil and a criminal one.
 The criminal is always suspended because the issue in the civil is determinative of the outcome of the
criminal case.

FACTS:
Plaintiffs were the children of the deceased, Pedro Celdran Sr. from the first marriage. Defendants were
Josefa Celdran, spouse of the deceased by the second marriage and their seven children. When the
defendants answered on May 28, 1954, Ignacio Celdran withdrew as one of the plaintiffs, alleging that the
documents were falsified. On March 6, 1959, the parties an amicable settlement, except Ignacio Celdran,
recognizing as valid for being satisfied by Ignacio, upon receipt of P 10,000 plus two residential lots.
Ignacio appealed to the CA. On March 22, 1963, at the instance of Ignacio, information for falsification of
public documents was filed by the first marriage.
ISSUE:
WON the proceedings in the criminal case on the ground of prejudicial question be suspended, for the
reason that the alleged falsification of document of withdrawal is at issue in the case pending in CA?
HELD:
The court held the action poses a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution for alleged falsification.
The authenticity of the document was assailed in the same civil action. The resolution in the civil case be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal suit pending. As such, it is a
prejudicial question which should be first decided before the prosecution can proceed in the criminal case.
Prejudicial question is one that arises in a case the resolution of which pertains to another tribunal; it is
determinative of the case before the court and jurisdiction to pass upon the same is lodged in another.
The decision of the CA is affirmed. The administrative case was held in abeyance of the high court.

Art 36

Facts: A person alleges that his “motion to withdraw” filed in approved by the court was falsified and
that the consequent decision of the court, basing his rights on the motion and disregarding his claim of
falsification, was erroneous. The decision on the civil case was appealed to the Court of Appeals before
the said person filed a criminal case against the accused for falsification of public document.

Held: SC ruled that the civil case should be decided first, as it answers a prejudicial question, which will
determine the results of the criminal case. The falsification of the “motion to withdraw” is intimately
linked with the subsequent criminal case for falsifying of document, and can affect the results of the
criminal proceedings.

G.R. No. L-22677             February 28, 1967

PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, JESUS, MANUEL, MIGUEL and VICENTE, all surnamed
FORTICH-CELDRAN;
SANTIAGO CATANE and ABELARDO CECILIO, petitioners,
vs. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

San Juan, Africa & Benedicto and Eduardo B. Sinense for petitioners.
Casiano U. Laput for respondents.

BENGZON, J.P., J.:
A suit for annulment of an extrajudicial partition of properties and for accounting was filed on
February 3, 1954 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civil Case No. 3397-R).

Appearing therein as plaintiffs were: Jose, Francisco, Pedro, Jr., Ignacio, all surnamed Abuton-
Celdran (children of the deceased Pedro Celdran by the first nuptial) and, as the administratrix of
Francisco Celdran (another brother), Modesta Rodriguez. Defendants were: Pablo Celdran (child of
the deceased by the first marriage who refused to join as plaintiff), Josefa Vda. de Celdran (spouse
of the deceased by the second marriage), Manuel, Antonio, Pedro III, Jesus, Vicente and Miguel, all
surnamed Fortich Celdran (children of the deceased by the second nuptial.

After the defendants answered on May 28, 1954, a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff was filed on
May 24, 1957. It was signed "Ignacio Celdran. This motion has been marked as Exhibit B-Josefa. 1äwphï1.ñët

Subsequently, with leave of court, the plaintiffs (excluding Ignacio) filed an amended complaint
impleading Ignacio Celdran as defendant. Ignacio Celdran filed an answer with counterclaim and
cross-claim.

After trial but before judgment, Ignacio Celdran had the document Exh. B-Josefa (the motion to
withdraw) examined by the Police Department of Cebu City. The police were of the view that the
same (signature therein) was falsified. Alleging newly discovered evidence, Ignacio Celdran asked
for new trial, which the court denied.

All the parties, except Ignacio Celdran, thereafter entered on May 6, 1959 into an amicable
settlement, recognizing as valid the aforementioned extrajudicial partition. Regarding Ignacio
Celdran, the court rendered judgment on July 19, 1961, declaring the same extrajudicial partition as
valid for having been ratified by him (Ignacio). Specifically, the court found among other things that
Ignacio signed the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa) after he received P10,000 of the agreed
P20,000 and two residential lots to be given to him in return for his aforesaid ratification of the
partition.

Said decision was later amended to require Pedro III, Antonio, Jesus, Miguel and Vicente, all
surnamed Fortich-Celdran, to pay Ignacio the balance of P20,000 aforestated and to deliver to him
the promised two parcels of land.

Ignacio Celdran appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals. And said appeal was docketed as CA-
G.R. No. 30499-R, shown in the record before Us as still pending.

Now on March 22, 1963, at the instance of Ignacio Celdran, an information for falsification of a public
document — that is, Exh. B-Josefa or the abovementioned motion to withdraw in the civil case —
was filed by the City Fiscal of Ozamis in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. Accused
therein were: Pedro III, Antonio, Manuel, Vicente, Miguel, and Jesus, all surnamed Celdran
(defendants in the civil case); Santiago Catane, as subscribing officer; Abelardo Cecilio, as the
person who filed the motion.

As private complainant, however, Ignacio Celdran on December 12, 1962, moved before trial to
suspend the proceedings in the criminal case on the ground of prejudicial question. The reason
given in support thereof was that the alleged falsification of the same document is at issue in the civil
case pending in the Court of Appeals.
Declaring that there was no pre-judicial question, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental
denied on January 28, 1963 the motion to suspend the prosecution. It ruled that the alleged forgery
was not an issue in the civil case.

Assailing the above ruling, Ignacio Celdran filed in the Court of Appeals on February 21, 1963, a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. No. 31909-R) to enjoin the CFI of Misamis
Occidental and the City Fiscal of Ozamis from proceeding with the prosecution of the criminal case.

On February 18, 1964 the Court of Appeals decided said petition for certiorari, ordering the
suspension of the criminal case due to pre-judicial question.

Pedro III, Jesus, Manuel, Miguel and Vicente, all surnamed Fortich-Celdran; Santiago Catane and
Abelardo Cecilio — accused in the criminal suit and respondents in the petition for certiorari —
appealed to Us from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 18, 1964.

Appellants would contend that there is no pre-judicial question involved. The record shows that, as
aforestated, the Court of First Instance ruled that Ignacio Celdran ratified the partition agreement;
among the reasons cited by the trial court for said ruling is that Ignacio Celdran received
P10,000 and signed the motion to withdraw as plaintiff in the suit. Disputing this, Celdran assigned
as error in his appeal the finding that he signed the aforementioned motion (Exh. B-Josefa) and
maintains that the same is a forgery. Since ratification is principal issue in the civil action pending
appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the falsification or genuineness of the motion to withdraw —
presented and marked as evidence in said civil case — is among the questions involved in said
issue, it follows that the civil action poses a pre-judicial question to the criminal prosecution for
alleged falsification of the same document, the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa).

Presented as evidence of ratification in the civil action is the motion to withdraw; its authenticity is
assailed in the same civil action. The resolution of this point in the civil case will in a sense be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal suit pending in another tribunal.
As such, it is a prejudicial question which should first be decided before the prosecution can proceed
in the criminal case.

A pre-judicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to
the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal; that is, it is
determinative of the case before the court and jurisdiction to pass upon the same is lodged in
another tribunal.1

It should be mentioned here also that an administrative case filed in this Court against Santiago
Catane upon the same charge was held by Us in abeyance, thus:

As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly forged by respondent

Regarding the procedural question on Ignacio Celdran's right as private offended party to file through
counsel a motion to suspend the criminal case, the same exists where, as herein, the Fiscal, who
had direction and control of the prosecution, did not object to the filing of said motion. And its filing in
this case complied with Sec. 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which provides:
 SEC. 5. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for the suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a pre-judicial question in a civil case, may only
be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action.

Denial of the motion to suspend the prosecution was therefore attended with grave abuse of
discretion; and the issue having been squarely and definitely presented before the trial court, a
motion for reconsideration, which would but raise the same points, was not necessary. Neither was
appeal the remedy available, since the order denying suspension is interlocutory and thus not yet
appealable.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals under review — ordering suspension of Criminal
CASE No. 5719, People vs. Pedro Fortich-Celdran, et al., pending before the Court of First Instance
of Misamis Occidental, until after Civil Case, CA-G.R. No. 30499-R, Pedro A. Celdran, et al. vs.
Pedro Fortich-Celdran III, et al., shall have been decided — is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes

People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Merced vs. Diaz, L-15315, Aug. 26, 1960; Mendiola vs.
1

Macadaeg, L-16874, Feb. 27, 1961; Zapanta vs. Montesa, L-14534, Feb. 28, 1962.