In Salazar v. Romaquin, the Supreme Court clarified that when the government is a party in appeals before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, service of pleadings must be made through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), not the Provincial Prosecutor. This rule ensures proper representation of the state’s interests in appellate proceedings. Failure to serve copies of the petition on the OSG is sufficient ground for dismissal, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural rules in appellate practice.

Whose Court Is It Anyway? The Reach of Provincial Prosecutors in Appeals

Benito C. Salazar was charged with murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan. After the Provincial Prosecutor filed the information, Salazar moved to suspend proceedings and lift the warrant of arrest, arguing that he had filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. The RTC granted the motion to suspend but denied the motion to lift the warrant. Salazar then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), but he served the copy of the petition to the Provincial Prosecutor instead of the Office of the Solicitor General. This procedural misstep became the central issue when the CA denied due course and dismissed Salazar’s petition, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

The heart of the matter revolves around the scope of authority granted to the Provincial Prosecutor versus the Office of the Solicitor General in representing the People of the Philippines. According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Provincial Prosecutor’s authority extends to criminal actions commenced in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the assigned prosecutor is unavailable, ceasing upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court. In contrast, Section 35(1) Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly designates the OSG as the representative of the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court emphasized this distinction, affirming that while the Provincial Prosecutor may represent the People of the Philippines in the trial court, the OSG’s mandate covers appellate proceedings. The Court cited Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a copy of the petition must be served on the People of the Philippines through the OSG. Failure to comply with this rule is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. The Court underscored the purpose of this rule, which is to ensure that the respondent is apprised of the filing of the petition and its averments, allowing them to file appropriate pleadings even before the appellate court acts on the petition.

Building on this principle, the Court further explained the implications of serving the petition on the Provincial Prosecutor, stating that such service is inefficacious. Any pleading filed by the Provincial Prosecutor on behalf of the People of the Philippines in the appellate court would be unauthorized and may be expunged from the records. This delineation is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the appellate process and ensuring that the state’s interests are properly represented.

The Court also addressed Salazar’s argument that his procedural lapse should be excused in light of the substantive issues he raised, particularly the alleged disqualification of Executive Judge Martelino-Cortes. Salazar contended that the Executive Judge should have recused herself due to her relationship with the wife of the deceased, Raymundo Rodriguez. However, the Court noted that Salazar failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the relationship rested on Salazar, and his failure to present adequate evidence during the trial court proceedings was a significant deficiency.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in appellate practice. The designation of the Office of the Solicitor General as the sole representative of the People of the Philippines in appellate proceedings ensures that the state’s interests are properly and consistently represented. Failure to comply with the service requirements can lead to the dismissal of the petition, regardless of the substantive issues raised. Therefore, practitioners must be vigilant in ensuring that all procedural requirements are met to avoid adverse consequences.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether service of a petition for certiorari on the Provincial Prosecutor, instead of the Office of the Solicitor General, constitutes valid service to the People of the Philippines in appellate proceedings.
Who represents the People of the Philippines in appellate courts?	The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) exclusively represents the People of the Philippines in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings, as stipulated in the 1987 Administrative Code.
What happens if a pleading is served on the wrong party in appellate court?	If a pleading is served on the Provincial Prosecutor instead of the OSG in appellate court, such service is considered inefficacious, and any pleading filed by the Provincial Prosecutor may be expunged from the records.
Why is it important to serve the OSG in appellate proceedings?	Serving the OSG ensures that the state’s interests are properly represented and that the respondent is apprised of the filing of the petition, allowing them to file appropriate pleadings.
Can a procedural lapse be excused if substantive issues are raised?	The Supreme Court has emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed. A procedural lapse, such as failure to properly serve the OSG, is a sufficient ground for dismissal, regardless of substantive issues raised.
What evidence is needed to prove a judge’s disqualification due to relationship?	The party alleging the judge’s disqualification must provide preponderant evidence to prove the relationship between the judge and the involved parties; unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient.
What is the role of the Provincial Prosecutor in criminal actions?	The Provincial Prosecutor prosecutes criminal actions in lower courts, but their authority ceases upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court, where the OSG takes over representation in appellate proceedings.
What rule governs the service of pleadings in appellate courts?	Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court mandates that a copy of the petition must be served on the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General.

The Salazar v. Romaquin case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules, especially regarding the proper service of pleadings in appellate courts. It reinforces the principle that the Office of the Solicitor General is the exclusive representative of the government in such proceedings, ensuring that the state’s interests are adequately protected.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Salazar v. Romaquin, G.R. No. 151068, May 21, 2004