G.R. No. 169882 - MANOLO P. SAMSON, VS. CATERPILLAR, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the said motion to be in order and it appearing that accused has not yet been arraigned and therefore the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the subject accused, the court hereby grants the withdrawal of the information in the above-entitled case as it is hereby ordered withdrawn form the record files of the court. [11] Caterpillar filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Mandaluyong RTC in an Order dated 27 August 2003: For resolution is a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of the court dated January 31, 2003 granting the withdrawal of the information from the record files of the court, filed on February 21, 2003, by the plaintiff in the above-entitled case. Hearing on the motion together with the opposition thereto was held after which, the same was submitted for resolution. After the court examined with great care the bases advanced by both parties in the aforesaid motion, the court was unable to find any cogent justification to overturn or set aside its previous order, there being no new issues raised and the same are rehash of its previous pleadings. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. [12] Caterpillar filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Order dated 31 January 2003 of the Mandaluyong RTC, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80532. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 13 December 2004, dismissed the Petition on the ground that Caterpillar lacked the legal standing to question the proceedings involving the criminal aspect of the case, and that its participation is limited only to the recovery of civil liability. The appellate court also took into account the denial by the Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierrez of Caterpillar's Motion for Reconsideration of her order to withdraw the Informations against Samson and, thus, ruled that this rendered the case moot and academic. [13] Caterpillar filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals. In its Amended Decision dated 8 August 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier ruling and declared that the Mandaluyong RTC gravely abused its discretion when it merely relied on the Resolution, dated 13 January 2003 of Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierrez in ordering the withdrawal of the information filed before it without making an independent assessment of the case. [14] In the dispositive portion of its Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that: WHEREFORE , in view [of] the foregoing rationications, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The decision of this Court dated 13 December 2004, as well as the assailed orders of the respondent court dated 31 January 2003 and 27 August 2003 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent court is hereby ordered to CONDUCT an independent assessment of whether the motion to withdraw information filed by