Alcaraz vs.

Gonzales
G.R. No. 164 715, Sept. 20, 2006

Bar Question:
A complaint for attempted was filed against X in the prosecutor office. After the
prosecution conducted an inquest information was filed with the METC. On motion of X,
MeTC order the city prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. The city prosecutor
finds probable cause and retain the information. X filed a motion for reconsideration and
was denied. From the order of denial, he filed a petition for review with the DOJ. The
Secretary of Justice issued a resolution granting the petition and ordered the withdrawal
of the information.
Y filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the DOJ. Aggrieved to
the decision of the DOJ, he filed a petition for review under rule 43 before the CA seeking
reversal of the DOJ’s resolution. The CA granted the petition. X filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied.

Was the CA correct to grant the petition.

Answer:
No. The CA was not correct to grant the petition. The petition for review under rule
43 was not the proper remedy for the respondent. He should have instead filed a petition
for certiorari under rule 65 in appealing his case before the CA. The decision/resolution
of the Secretary of Justice in affirming, modifying, or reversing the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor is final and executory. The legislature has not provided an
adequate remedy by appeal in such case. Thus, the petition for certiorari is available.

Dagan vs. Ombudsman

G.R. No. 184083, 19 November 2013

Bar Question:
A filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Y for
violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; malversation; violation of Republic Act
No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and
Employees; falsification of public document; dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Office
of the Ombudsman's Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau
rendered a Decision absolving respondent of charges of grave misconduct, oppression,
dishonesty, serious irregularities and violation of laws. The OMB disregarded the charge
of neglect in implementing the law on drug testing because petitioner failed to show that
it was respondents' principal duty to implement such drug testing. A filed a motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation but on 25 November 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman
denied the motion for lack of merit.
A elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On 28 April 2008, the appellate court issued a
Resolution dismissing the petition for failure of A to avail of the correct mode of appeal.

Is the decision of the Ombudsman can be reviewed through Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court?

Answer:
Yes. The decision of the Ombudsman can be reviewed.
It was thus clarified that there are two instances where a decision, resolution or
order of the Ombudsman arising from an administrative case becomes final and
unappealable: (1) where the respondent is absolved of the charge; and (2) in case of
conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary. [13]

In the instant case, the respondents were absolved of the charges against them by the
Office of the Ombudsman. Such decision is final and unappealable.

However, petitioner is not left without any remedy. In Republic v. Francisco,[14] we ruled
that decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by
law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness,
or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a
contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. Thus, the
decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over
the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Villareal vs. Aliga

713 SCRA 52

Bar Question:
 An Information was filed against X for the crime of Qualified Theft thru
Falsification of Commercial Document. During her arraignment, X pleaded not guilty.
After the RTC resolved to deny Y's motion for issuance of a hold departure order
against X and the latter's motion to suspend proceedings, trial on the merits ensued.
Both the prosecution and the defense were able to present the testimonies of their
witnesses and their respective documentary exhibits.
The RTC succinctly opined that the evidence of the prosecution is very clear that
X must have been the one who made the intercalation in the subject check, and that
even without her written admission, the evidence presented constitutes proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
It appearing that the amount of P60,000.00 subject of the offense was already
returned by the accused, the Court hereby absolves the accused of civil liability in this
case.
X appealed to the CA, which, on April 27, 2004, reversed and set aside the
judgment of the RTC on the grounds that:
(1) her admission or confession of guilt before the NBI authorities, which already
qualifies as a custodial investigation, is inadmissible in evidence because she was not
informed of her rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of her own choice; and
(2) the totality of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is
insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Y's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on August 10, 2004; hence, this
petition.

Is rule 65 of the rules the proper remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal?

Answer:

Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules and NOT a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45.

The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an
ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy would be violated.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the
petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the
State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in
the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision
or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant
should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may
be prosecuted in the name of said complainant.

In the case at bar, the petition filed essentially assails the criminal, not the civil,
aspect of the CA Decision. It must even be stressed that petitioner never challenged
before the CA, and in this Court, the RTC judgment which absolved respondent Aliga
from civil liability in view of the return of the P60,000.00 subject matter of the offense on
October 30, 1996. Therefore, the petition should have been filed only by the State through
the OSG. Petitioner lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA Decision
because it is only the OSG which can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal
proceedings before the Supreme Court and the CA.

Heirs of Julio Sobremonte vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 206234, Oct 22, 2014

Bar Question:

The heirs of X and Y co-owned a lot which was placed under the government’s
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program pursuant to PD 27 on emancipation of tenants
and declaring ownership of land by tenants. During X’s lifetime, she filed a protest before
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) alleging that no tenancy relationship
existed between her and the identified farmer-beneficiaries of the property. DAR
Secretary affirmed MARO’s and DAR Regional Director’s decision dismissing the
complaint. X filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA which was dismissed
by the latter. X then filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.

Should the action be granted?

Suggested Answer:
No, the action should not be granted.

A writ of certiorari maybe issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as its function is
limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction."Grave abuse of
discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
 In this case, no abuse of discretion, grave or simple in nature was committed by
the CA in dismissing the petitioners’ certiorari petition for being the wrong mode of appeal.
The CA’s dismissal of the certiorari petition is, in fact, well-supported by law and
jurisprudence. It was held that Rule 43 of the Rules of Court shall govern the procedure
for judicial review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the DAR Secretary, and that an
appeal taken to the Supreme Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall
be dismissed.

The CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed
resolutions. Hence, the action should be dismissed.

Inc Shipmanagement, Inc Vs. Moradas

713 SCRA 475

Bar Question:
Mr. X was employed as a wiper for the vessel owned by Y Company.
Mr. X met an accident while working in the vessel. Certain chemicals splashed all
over his body because the vessel’s incinerator exploded and suffered deep burns
because of the explosion. The burns suffered rendered him permanently incapable as a
seaman. So, Mr. X filed a labor complaint demanding payment of his full disability benefits
under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) and Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC) to Y Company. Y Company refused to heed because the injuries
suffered were self-inflicted hence not compensable under the POEA-SEC.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Y Company. The NLRC sustained the findings
of the Labor Arbiter. It gave due credence to the evidence presented absent any showing
that Y Company was motivated by ill-will. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the NRLC holding grave abuse of discretion.

Was there grave abuse of discretion?

Suggested Answer:
No, there was no grave abuse of discretion.

Based on jurisprudence, it is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be

considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, having established through substantial evidence that Mr. X’s injury was self-
inflicted and, hence, not compensable pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 1996 POEA-SEC.
No grave abuse of discretion can be imputed against the NLRC in upholding LA’s decision
to dismiss his complaint for disability benefits.

Principle:
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act of a court or tribunal was done in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment asis equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar

714 SCRA 514

Bar Question:
X filed a complaint for collection of sum of money for the unpaid water bills against
Y under Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases before the MTCC. In his defense, Y
contended that he religiously paid X the agreed monthly flat rate for her water
consumption. MTCC ruled in favor of Y prompting X to file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 with the RTC which was dismissed by the latter finding that the said petition was
only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases. X then filed a
petition for certiorari with the SC.

Should the action be granted?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the action should be granted.

The Court has consistently ruled that "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always
available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision
under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party
may, thus, immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals
in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available
remedy does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In this case, X correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the propriety of
the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims case, contrary to the RTC’s ruling. Owing
to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors
tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition
based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by
capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the
controversy. Likewise, X filed the petition before the proper forum.

In fine, the RTC erred in dismissing the said petition on the ground that it was an
improper remedy. Hence, the action should be granted.