THIRD DIVISION Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with

the CA assailing the July 2, 2009 and July 23, 2009 Orders of the RTC of
[G.R. No. 207041. November 9, 2015.] Roxas City.
In its presently assailed Decision, the CA denied respondent's
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Office
petition and affirmed the questioned RTC Orders. Respondent's Motion for
of the City Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Roxas
Reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its disputed Resolution.
City, petitioner, vs. JESUS A. ARROJADO, respondent.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari raising a sole
DECISION Assignment of Error, to wit:

PERALTA, J p: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN

IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE INVESTIGATING
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set PROSECUTOR TO INDICATE HER MCLE COMPLIANCE
aside the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated NUMBER AND DATE OF ISSUANCE THEREOF IN THE
September 8, 2011 and April 18, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. INFORMATION AGAINST
04540. The assailed Decision affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial RESPONDENT JESUS A. ARROJADO WARRANTED THE
Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 16, dated July 2, 2009 and July 23, 2009 DISMISSAL OF THE SAME. 9
in Criminal Case No. C-75-09, while the questioned Resolution denied
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that: (1) the term "pleadings" as used in B.M. No.
1922 does not include criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of the
The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as investigating prosecutor to indicate in the Information the number and date of
follows: issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect and is
not a valid ground to dismiss the subject Information which is otherwise
In an Information dated March 23, 2009, herein respondent was
complete in form and substance.
charged with the crime of murder by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas
City, Capiz. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-75-09 and was The petition lacks merit.
raffled off to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Iloilo (RTC
of Roxas City). Pertinent portions of B.M. No. 1922, provide as follows:

On June 16, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 3 the xxx xxx xxx
Information filed against him on the ground that the investigating prosecutor The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
who filed the said Information failed to indicate therein the number and date Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to
of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all
Compliance, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922 (B.M. No. 1922) which was pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial
promulgated by this Court via an En Banc Resolution dated June 3, 2008. 4 bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE
Herein petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition 5 to respondent's Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may
be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance
Motion to Dismiss contending that: (1) the Information sought to be dismissed
period. Failure to disclose the required information would
is sufficient in form and substance; (2) the lack of proof of MCLE compliance
by the prosecutor who prepared and signed the Information should not cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records.
prejudice the interest of the State in filing charges against persons who have
violated the law; and (3) an administrative edict cannot prevail over xxx xxx xxx 10
substantive or procedural law, by imposing additional requirements for the
sufficiency of a criminal information. Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines
pleadings as the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of
On July 2, 2009, the RTC of Roxas City issued an Order 6 dismissing the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. Among the
the subject Information without prejudice. Respondent filed a Motion for pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof are the complaint and the
Reconsideration, 7 but the trial court denied it in its Order 8 dated July 23, answer in a civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule 110 of the
2009. aDSIHc same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. 1922categorically provides that "[f]ailure to disclose the required information
In accordance with the above definitions, it is clear that an information is a would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings
pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person with an offense, from the records." In this regard, petitioner must be reminded that it assailed
is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintiff's the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information via a special civil action
cause or cause of action. In this respect, the Court quotes with approval the for certiorari filed with the CA. The writ of certiorari is directed against a
ruling of the CA on the matter, to wit: tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
xxx xxx xxx
discretion. 14 Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical
[A]n information is, for all intents and purposes, considered exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 15 To justify
an initiatory pleading because it is a written statement that the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave,
contains the cause of action of a party, which in criminal as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
cases is the State as represented by the prosecutor, against of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to
the accused. Like a pleading, the Information is also filed in amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
court for appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
Information falls squarely within the ambit of Bar Matter No. having acted without jurisdiction. 16 Since the trial court's dismissal of the
1922, in relation to Bar Matter 850. 11 subject Information was based on a clear and categorical provision of
a rule issued by this Court, the court a quo could not have committed a
Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United States, upon capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it exercise its discretion
which our rules of criminal procedure were patterned, an information is in an arbitrary or despotic manner. Thus, the CA did not commit error in
considered a pleading. Thus, Rule 12 (a), Title IV of the United States dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari. ETHIDa
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that: "[t]he pleadings in a criminal
proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas of not guilty, In harping on its contention that the ends of justice would be best
guilty, and nolo contendere." Thus, the Supreme Court of Washington held served if the criminal case would be allowed to proceed in order to determine
that: the innocence or culpability of the accused, petitioner sounds as if the
dismissal of the Information left the prosecution with no other recourse or
An information is a pleading. It is the formal remedy so as to irreversibly jeopardize the interests of the State and the
statement on the part of the state of the facts constituting the private offended party. On the contrary, the Court agrees with the CA that the
offense which the defendant is accused of committing. In dismissal of the Information, without prejudice, did not leave the prosecution
other words, it is the plain and concise statement of the facts
without any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. To avoid undue delay
constituting the cause of action. It bears the same relation to in the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the parties'
a criminal action that a complaint does to a civil action; and, respective rights to a speedy disposition of their case, the prosecution,
when verified, its object is not to satisfy the court or jury that mindful of its duty not only to prosecute offenders but more importantly to do
the defendant is guilty, nor is it for the purpose of evidence justice, could have simply re-filed the Information containing the required
which is to be weighed and passed upon, but is only to inform
number and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate
the defendant of the precise acts or omissions with which he
of Compliance, instead of resorting to the filing of various petitions in court to
is accused, the truth of which is to be determined thereafter stubbornly insist on its position and question the trial court's dismissal of the
by direct and positive evidence upon a trial, where the
subject Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's
defendant is brought face to face with the witnesses. 12
resources.
In a similar manner, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that "[a]n indictment The Court is neither persuaded by petitioner's invocation of the
in a criminal case is a pleading, since it accomplishes the same purpose as
principle on liberal construction of procedural rules by arguing that such liberal
a declaration in a civil suit, pleading by allegation the cause of action in law
construction "may be invoked in situations where there may be some
against [a] defendant." 13 excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same
As to petitioner's contention that the failure of the investigating does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a
prosecutor to indicate in the subject Information the number and date of issue reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules." The prosecution has never
of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect and is not a shown any reasonable attempt at compliance with the rule enunciated
valid ground to dismiss such Information, suffice it to state that B.M. No. under B.M. No. 1922. Even when the motion for reconsideration of the RTC
Order dismissing the subject Information was filed, the required number and
date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of
Compliance was still not included nor indicated. Thus, in the instant case,
absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and liberality in
the observance of procedural rules appear to be an afterthought, hence,
cannot be granted.
In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of cases
brought about by a counsel's failure to indicate in his or her pleadings the
number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this
Court issued an En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which
amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to
disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate
penalty and disciplinary action." Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the
failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of
issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the
dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records.
Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or
disciplinary action.
In light of the above amendment, while the same was not yet in effect
at the time that the subject Information was filed, the more prudent and
practical thing that the trial court should have done in the first place, so as to
avoid delay in the disposition of the case, was not to dismiss the Information
but to simply require the investigating prosecutor to indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 8, 2011 and April 18,
2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 04540 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.