G.R. No.

192685               July 31, 2013 As required by the Ombudsman, respondents filed their counter-affidavits:
OSCAR R. AMPIL vs THE HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Espenesin and Serrano filed individually, while Yuchengco and Cheng filed
POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN jointly. Respondents’ respective counter-affidavits uniformly denied
petitioner’s charges.
Facts: On 9 November 1995, ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and Malayan
Insurance Company (MICO) entered into a Joint Project Development Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued the assailed Resolution in G.R. No.
Agreement (JPDA) for the construction of a condominium building to be 192685 dismissing Ampil’s complaint. For the Ombudsman, the resolution
known as "The Malayan Tower." Under the JPDA, MICO shall provide the of whether respondents falsified the CCTs must be prefaced by a
real property located at the heart of the Ortigas Business District, Pasig determination of who, between MICO and ASB, is the rightful owner of the
City, while ASB would construct, and shoulder the cost of construction and subject units. The Ombudsman held that it had no authority to interpret the
development of the condominium building. provisions of the MOA and, thus, refrained from resolving the preliminary
question of ownership. Given the foregoing, the Ombudsman was hard
A year thereafter, on 20 November 1996, MICO and ASB entered into pressed to make a categorical finding that the CCTs were altered to speak
another contract, with MICO selling to ASB the land it was contributing something false. In short, the Ombudsman did not have probable cause to
under the JPDA. Under the Contract to Sell, ownership of the land will vest indict respondents for falsification of the CCTs because the last element of
on ASB only upon full payment of the purchase price. the crime, i.e., that the change made the document speak something false,
had not been established.
After learning of the amendment in the CCTs issued in ASB’s name,
Ampil, on 23 January 2007, wrote respondents Yuchengco and Cheng, Ampil filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, in yet another setback,
President and Chief Financial Officer of MICO, respectively, introducing the Ombudsman denied Ampil’s motion and affirmed the dismissal of his
himself as an unsecured creditor of ASB Holdings, Inc., one of the complaint.
corporations forming part of the ASB Group of Companies. 13 Ampil averred On the administrative litigation front and as previously narrated, the
that MICO had illegally registered in its name the subject units at The Ombudsman found Espenesin liable for Simple Misconduct. However, on
Malayan Tower which were reserved for ASB under the MOA, and motion for reconsideration of Ampil praying for a finding of guilt against
actually, already registered in ASB’s name with the Register of Deeds of Espenesin for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, the Ombudsman
Pasig City. Ampil pointed out that the "condominium units should have reconsidered its earlier resolution and recalled the one-month suspension
benefited him and other unsecured creditors of ASB because the latter had meted on Espenesin.
categorically informed them previously that the same would be contributed Thereafter, Ampil filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
to the Asset Pool created under the Rehabilitation Plan of the ASB Group Court before the appellate court. And as already stated, the appellate court
of Companies." Ultimately, Ampil demanded that Yuchengco and Cheng affirmed the Ombudsman’s resolution absolving Espenesin of not just
rectify the resulting error in the CCTs, and facilitate the registration of the Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, but also of Simple Misconduct.
subject units back to ASB’s name. Thus this appeal to the SC.

As previously adverted to, Ampil charged respondents with Falsification of Issue: WON the Ombudsman acted in grave abuse of discretion?
Public Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code and
violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 before the Held: Plainly, the Ombudsman has "full discretion," based on the attendant
Office of the Ombudsman. facts and circumstances, to determine the existence of probable cause or
the lack thereof.20 On this score, we have consistently hewed to the policy
of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally

1
mandated powers.21 The Ombudsman’s finding to proceed or desist in the represented her unpaid water bills for the period June 1, 2002 to
prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed through certiorari September 30, 2005.
proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determination is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion which contemplates an abuse so Petitioner claimed that it was duly authorized to supply water to and collect
grave and so patent equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 22 payment therefor from the homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision, one
However, on several occasions, we have interfered with the Ombudsman’s of whom is respondent who owns and occupies Lot 8, Block 3 of said
discretion in determining probable cause: subdivision. From June 1, 2002 until September 30, 2005, respondent and
(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; her family consumed a total of 1,150 cubic meters (cu. m.) of water, which
(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid upon application of the agreed rate of ₱113.00 for every 10 cu. m. of
oppression or multiplicity of actions; water, plus an additional charge of ₱11.60 for every additional cu. m. of
(c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; water, amounted to ₱28,580.09.8 However, respondent only paid the
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; amount of ₱5,468.38, thus, leaving a balance of ₱23,111.71 which was left
(e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; unpaid despite petitioner’s repeated demands.9
(f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; In defense, respondent contended that since April 1998 up to February
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 2003, she religiously paid petitioner the agreed monthly flat rate of ₱75.00
(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; for her water consumption. Notwithstanding their agreement that the same
(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for would be adjusted only upon prior notice to the homeowners, petitioner
vengeance.23 (Emphasis supplied). unilaterally charged her unreasonable and excessive adjustments (at the
The fourth circumstance is present in G.R. No. 192685. average of 40 cu. m. of water per month or 1.3 cu. m. of water a day) far
In the instant case, petitioner was grossly negligent in all the purchases above the average daily water consumption for a household of only 3
that were made under his watch. Petitioner’s admission that the canvass persons. She also questioned the propriety and/or basis of the aforesaid
sheets sent out by de Jesus to the suppliers already contained his ₱23,111.71 claim.10
signatures because he pre-signed these forms only proved his utter In the interim, petitioner disconnected respondent’s water line for not
disregard of the consequences of his actions. Petitioner also admitted that paying the adjusted water charges since March 2003 up to August 2005. 11
he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on personal canvass but he did not MTCC ruled in favor of Mondejar and thus appealed to RTC. The RTC
follow the law because he was merely following the practice of his issued a Decision21 dismissing the petition for certiorari, finding that the
predecessors. This was an admission of a mindless disregard for the law said petition was only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of
in a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering that as small claims cases as provided under Section 23 22 of the Rule of
municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the law to the letter. As Procedure on Small Claims Cases. To this end, the RTC ruled that it
local chief executive, he should have been the first to follow the law and cannot supplant the decision of the MTCC with another decision directing
see to it that it was followed by his constituency. Sadly, however, he was respondent to pay petitioner a bigger sum than that which has been
the first to break it. awarded. MR was denied and thus a Petition for Certiorari was filed in SC.

G.R. No. 200804               January 22, 2014 Issue: The sole issue in this case is whether or not the RTC erred in
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. vs EMMA MONDEJAR dismissing petitioner’s recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
assailing the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims
Facts: On March 23, 2011, petitioner filed a complaint 5 for sum of money case.
under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 6 before the MTCC,
seeking to collect from respondent the amount of ₱23,111.71 which

2
Held: Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under of a lady customer. Due to tension that arose between the two, they were
the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the invited to the casino’s Internal Security Office in order to air their
prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its respective sides. He was required to file an Incident Report. By January
execution.25 Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims 2009, he was issued a memo charging him with Discourtesy. He was later
cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available on found guilty of the same and 30-day suspension was imposed. He filed
remedy,26 does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for MR seeking reversal of the decision and also Motion for Production to be
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. furnished with documents relative to the case. Both were denied. He then
filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. He ascribed grave
In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that "the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to the acts
extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal of PAGCOR in adjudging him guilty of the charge, in failing to observe the
or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of proper procedure in the rendition of its decision and in imposing the harsh
law." penalty of a 30-day suspension. He further explained that he did not
appeal to the Civil Service Commission because the penalty imposed on
Truly, an essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary him was only a 30-day suspension which is not within the CSC’s appellate
remedies under the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any "plain, jurisdiction. CA outrightly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being
speedy and adequate remedy" in the ordinary course of law, one which premature as petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before
has been so defined as a "remedy which (would) equally (be) beneficial, seeking recourse from the CA.
speedy and sufficient not merely a remedy which at some time in the
future will bring about a revival of the judgment x x x complained of in the Issue: WON CA was correct in outrightly dismissing the petition for
certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the certiorari filed before it on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative
petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the remedies.
inferior court or tribunal" concerned.
Decision: CA’s outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the basis
Hence, considering that small claims cases are exclusively within the of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is bereft of any legal
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, standing
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, 34 certiorari
petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed before their Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party
corresponding Regional Trial Courts. This petitioner complied with when it is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have
instituted its petition for certiorari before the RTC which, as previously availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes
mentioned, has jurisdiction over the same. In fine, the RTC erred in afforded him or her.
dismissing the said petition on the ground that it was an improper remedy,
and, as such, RTC Case No. 11-13833 must be reinstated and remanded Exceptions: (1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when the
thereto for its proper disposition. issue involved is purely a legal question; (3) when the administrative action
is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4) when there
GR No 190566 11 December 2013 is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when
Maglalang vs PAGCOR there is irreparable injury; (6) when the respondent is a department
secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied
Facts: Mark Maglalang was a teller at the Casino Filipino operated by and assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of
PAGCOR. In December 2008, he committed an error counting the money administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount

3
to a nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject matter is a private land in pieces of Anti-Virus Software Kaspersky Internet Security Premium 2012,
land case proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, subject to customs duties,by misdeclaration under Import Entry No. C-
speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances 181011 and Bill of Lading No. PFCMAN1715, filed with the Bureau of
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay Customs (BOC),covering One Forty Footer (1x40) container van shipment
would greatly prejudice the complainant; (12) where no administrative bearing No. KKFU7195683 which was falsely declared to contain 40
review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified political agency pallets/1,690 cartons of CD kit cleaner and plastic CD case, said imported
applies and (14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative items having customs duties amounting to Three Million Three Hundred
remedies has been rendered moot. Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Five Pesos (Php 3,341,245) of
which only the amount of One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Sixty
The case falls squarely under exception number 12 since the law per se Two Pesos (Php100,362) was paid, in violation of the above-captioned
provides no administrative review for administrative cases whereby an law, and to the prejudice and damage of the Government in the amount of
employee like petitioner is covered by Civil Service law, rules and Three Million Two Hundred Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three
regulations and penalized with a suspension for not more than 30 days. Pesos (Php3,240,883).4

The judicial recourse petitioner availed of in this case before the CA is a During the hearing the prosecution presented their evidence, On January
special civil action for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion, 15, 2013, Garcia and Vestidas, Jr. filed their Omnibus Motion to File
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of PAGCOR, not an Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court to Cancel Hearing Scheduled
appeal. An appeal and a special civil action such as certiorari under Rule on January 21, 2013,whichwas granted by the CTA. Thereafter, they filed
65 are entirely distinct and separate from each other. One cannot file the Demurrer to Evidence, dated January 13, 2012, claiming that the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules where appeal is available, prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
even if the ground availed of is grave abuse of discretion. A special civil following reasons:
action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, or
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. a)The pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution were
Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a inadmissible in court;
judgment despite the availability of that remedy, as the same should not be
a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. The remedies of appeal and b)The object evidence consisting of the allegedly mis declared goods were
certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. not presented as evidence; and

G.R. No. 208290               December 11, 2013 c)None of the witnesses for the prosecution made a positive identification
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs THE HONORABLE JUANITO C. of the two accused as the ones responsible for the supposed
CASTANEDA Jr. misdeclaration.

Facts: That on or about November 5, 2011, or prior or subsequent thereto, Despite opposition, the CTA dismissed the case against Garcia and
in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Vestidas Jr.in its March 26, 2013 Resolution, for failure of the prosecution
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Myrna M. Garcia and to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. as owner/proprietress and broker of Plinth
Enterprise respectively, conspiring and confederating with each other, with Issue: WON the CTA acted in grave abuse of discretion?
intent to defraud the government, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and fraudulently import into the Port of Manila, 858 cartons of 17,160 Held: The Court agrees with the disposition of the CTA.

4
At the outset, it should be noted that the petition was filed beyond the No 110280 12 October 1993
reglementary period for the filing thereof under Rule 65. The petition itself
stated that a copy of the May 15, 2013 Resolution was received by the Facts: U.P. Board of Regents issued a Resolution establishing the STFAP
BOC two (2) days after its promulgation, or on May 17, 2013. Nonetheless, (Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program). All students are entitled
the RATS was only alerted by the developments in the case on July 24, to apply for STFAP benefits. Applicants are required to accomplish a
2013, when Atty. Danilo M. Campos Jr. (Atty. Campos) received the July questionnaire and at the end the application form, the student applicant, as
15, 2013 Resolution of the CTA ordering the entry of judgment in the case, well as his parent, signs a sworn statement – University may send a fact-
considering that no appeal was taken by any of the parties. According to finding team to visit my home/residence to verify the veracity of the
Atty. Campos, it was only on that occasion when he discovered the May information
15, 2013 Resolution of the CTA. Thus, it was prayed that the petition be
given due course despite its late filing. Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the College of Law, availed of
This belated filing cannot be countenanced by the Court. STFAP. A team conducted a home investigation at the residence of Nadal
Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating in Quezon City and found discrepancies between the report and Nadal’s
that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of application form. Villanueva (head of the office of scholarship) wrote Nadal
the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period informing him that he had failed to declare, not only the fact that he had a
is in extendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the 1977 Corolla car which was owned by his brother but also the income of
constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. 13 While his mother who was supporting his brothers. He reclassified him to Bracket
there are recognized exceptions14 to such strict observance, there should 9 (from Bracket 4), retroactive to June 1989, unless he could submit
be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a “proofs to the contrary.” Nadal was required “to pay back the equivalent
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the amount of full school fees”.
rules.15
In the case at bench, no convincing justification for the belated filing of the Because of the discrepancies between Nadal’s application form and the
petition was advanced to warrant the relaxation of the Rules. Notably, the certification, the U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary
records show that the petition was filed only on August 12, 2013, or almost Tribunal (SDT) that he willfully withheld and did not declare a car and the
a month late from the due date which fell on July 16, 2013. To excuse this income of his mother which acts of willfully withholding information is
grave procedural lapse will not only be unfair to the other party, but it will tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies
also sanction a seeming rudimentary attempt to circumvent standing rules
of procedure. Suffice it to say, the reasons proffered by the petitioner do SDT rendered a decision exculpating Nadal of the charge of deliberately
not carry even a tinge of merit that would deserve leniency. withholding in his STFAP application form information that he was
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of maintaining a Toyota Corolla car, but finding him guilty of deliberately
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion withholding information about the income of his mother. SDT imposed
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or upon Nadal the penalty of expulsion from the University and required him
a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in to reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and voluntarily make reimbursement, it shall be “effected by the University thru
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. 16 Here, the subject outside legal action.” SDT decision elevated to the Executive Committee of
resolutions of the CTA have been issued in accordance with the rules on U.P. Diliman for review which affirmed the decision of the SDT;
evidence and existing jurisprudence. whereupon, Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents (BOR). BOR affirmed
the decision of the SDT; the penalty was modified “from Expulsion to One
UP Board of Regents vs Ligot-TEylan Year- Suspension. Nadal filed a MR of the BOR decision (guilty).

5
 constitutionality of the decree and that such decree is in violation of the
Nadal asked President Abueva not to issue any press release regarding Land Registration Act.
the case and filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for mandamus
with preliminary injunction and prayer for a TRO against President Abueva Issue: Whether or not PD 293 is valid
and the BOR. The lower court ruled that they are temporarily restrained.
Dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the petitioners Held: No. PD 293 reveals that President Marcos exercised a judicial
filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the function when he made determination of facts and applied the law to those
issuance of an injunction or temporary restraining order, facts. It was shown that the acts were done with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction - exercising judicial power not
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion vested to him by the Constitution. The petitioners were also deprived of
in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction thereby their rights to due process in the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
preventing the BOR from implementing the suspension penalty it had Thus, the acts were not only unconstitutional becuase of th also in violation
imposed on Nadal. of the right to due process to which the petitioners are entitled in virtue of
the Constitution.
Decision: The Court finds that the lower court gravely abused its discretion
in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993. The issuance G.R. No. 230953, June 20, 2018
of the said writ was based on the lower court’s finding that the GSIS vs CA
implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on Nadal “would
work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, Facts: Private respondent, retired Judge Ma. Lorna P. Demonteverde
and consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job.” Sadly, such a (Demonteverde) started her service in the government on July 1, 1963 with
ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without taking into account the the National Electrification Administration (NEA) until her resignation on.
circumstances clearly of his own making, which led him into such a February 15, 1967.3 She then transferred to the Development Bank of the
predicament. More importantly, it has completely disregarded the Philippines (DBP) - Bacolod and served until December 31, 1986. On
overriding issue of academic freedom which provides more than ample January 29, 1987, she transferred to the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)
justification for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon an erring where she served until June 29, 1995. All in all, Demonteverde served in
student of an institution of higher learning. the said government agencies for a total of 32 years, from 1963 to 1995.
She was appointed as a judge on June 30, 1995 and served until Feb 22,
TUASON VS CALOOCAN, G.R. NO. 70484 JANUARY 29, 1988 2011. Demonteverde requested from the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) a refund of the retirement premiums she paid under
Facts: Petitioner-spouses, the Tuasons, purchased a piece of land from Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 11464 and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6605 in
Carmel Farms, Inc. (Carmel) in 1965. In virtue of this sale, Carmel's excess of the retirement premiums that she should pay under R.A. No.
Torrens title was cancelled and the Tuasons were issued a new title. In 910, as amended, the law on retirement benefits for Judges and Justices
1973, the Tuasons were given notice that they no longer own the property applicable to her when she joined the Judiciary on June 30, 1995.
and it has been declared open for disposition and sale to the members of However, instead of issuing a refund only of the excess of the
the Malacanang Homeowners Assoc. This is in accordance with PD 293 contributions paid, the GSIS, on August 23, 1995, refunded to
declaring that all sale contracts between the government and original Demonteverde the amount of P16,836.60 representing her retirement
purchasers (including Carmel) are cancelled and sale contracts between premiums, or her total personal share with interest, under R.A. No. 660.
the latter and transferees and any other transfers are declared invalid, null Demonteverde filed her retirement benefits with the Supreme Court as well
and void ab initio. The spouses filed this petition assailing the as with the GSIS. Given the issues raised in Demonteverde's case, the

6
GSIS inquired with both the PAO and the Supreme Court as to whether are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation
Demonteverde received gratuity benefits and if her entire government of rules.
service was covered in her retirement under R.A. No. 910, respectively.
She filed for a motion of execution for her retirement benefits to be The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is
released. But, she changed her mind and questioned the accrual date of to file a petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
her retirement benefits, arguing that the date of her retirement should be within fifteen days from notice of the resolution. Recourse to a petition
the date when she reached sixty (60) years of age, even when she was for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the
still in active government service at that time, and not on February 22, wrong remedy. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a)
2011, or the date of her actual retirement from government service. when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b)
Demonteverde likewise denied receiving a copy of the GSIS BOT when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued
Decision, denied that the later Notice of Decision dated November 19, are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an
2013 contained a copy of the GSIS BOT Decision. GSIS denied such oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
request and thus she went to the CA under Rule 65. It was dismissed
because the proper mode of appeal is Rule 43 for quasi-judicial agencies. Petitioner cites paragraph (a) as her exception but it was not affirmed by
Thus this petition to the SC. the SC. "Public policy" has a specific definition in jurisprudence. It has
been defined as that principle of the law which holds that no subject or
Issue: A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the
IS NOT AN ALTERNATE REMEDY FOR LOST APPEALS UNDER RULE public of against public good. 34 It is the principle under which freedom of
43 AND THE TWO ACTIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. contract or private dealing is restricted for the good of the community.
Reyes vs Sandiganbayan
Held: G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June 27, 2018
A special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65, is an independent action
based on the specific grounds therein provided and will lie only if there is Facts: This the case involving the 728M Fertilizer Fund Corruption
no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary allegation against among all others which includes Carmencita O. Reyes.
course of law.24 A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of Reyes was charged for alleged violation of Article 220 (Illegal Use of
discretion is alleged and proved to exist. Public Funds or Property, commonly known as Technical Malversation) of
Act 3135, otherwise known as the "Revised Penal Code of the Philippines"
"Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, refers to the arbitrary or (RPC); and Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." Thereafter,
or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to Reyes then filed a consolidated counter affidavit7 upon which Task Force
an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at Abono filed its Reply8 on November 26, 2008.
all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been
done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be REYES as evidenced by her letter and purchase requests dated 30 April
patent and gross.25 2004 and 03 May 2004, respectively, which requests have induced the
Nonetheless, the general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not accused DA-RFU IV employees to transact with LCV Design and
interchangeable admits of exceptions. This Court has, before, treated a Fabrication Corporation (LCV), with accused REMUS C. VILLANUEVA as
petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly: (1) if president, in whose favor the purchase order and payment for one (1) unit
the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within Shredding Machine, one (1) unit Hammermill/Shifter, one (1) unit Pelletizer
which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment and one (1) unit Tornado Brush Chipper/Shredder as listed under

7
Purchase Order No. 119-04, dated 05 May 2004, duly signed by accused charged may have been committed by Reyes and that any assertion by
MARIE PAZ JASMINE M. CABUCOL, amounting to Five Million Pesos Reyes that negates the complication of the documents are matters of
(Php5,000,000.00), Philippine currency, charged against the Farm Input defense.
Fund for the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Program of the DA as covered
by SARO No. E-04-00164, has been awarded by accused BAC Members It must be emphasized that the Ombudsman itself conducted its own
ABELARDO BRAGAS, FELIX RAMOS, OFELIA MONTILLA and preliminary investigation in this case. It was during this investigation that
GREGORIO SANGGALANG; without the conduct of a public bidding, the Ombudsman, faced with the facts and circumstances extant herein,
thereby resorting to Direct Contracting, thus, giving said corporation was led to believe that (1) a crime has been committed; and (2) there is
unwarranted benefit, preference or advantage, knowing fully well that at probable cause that Reyes was guilty thereof. That the Ombudsman
the time of procurement, the patent application of said corporation for the referred to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report as additional basis
equipment purchased has not yet been approved. Reyes filed an omnibus for its findings does nothing to refute the validity of the preliminary
motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Deferment of investigation, the evidence gathered therein, or the conclusion of the
Arraignment but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Ombudsman after that investigation.

Reyes further argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of On the basis of these findings, the Sandiganbayan cannot be said to have
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied her committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
assertion that no probable cause exists for either case. Reyes assails the jurisdiction when it denied Reyes's assertion that no probable cause exists
Sandigabayan's reliance on the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report for both cases.
being not part of the record of the case and considers it hearsay, as well
as the finding that the "arguments propounded by the accused-movants In a petition for certiorari, the public respondent acts without
reveal that they are matters of defense. jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case;
there is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed
Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan acted in grave abuse of discretion with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as
amounting to lack and excess of jurisdiction? determined by law. There is grave abuse of discretion where the
public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or
Held: At the outset, it bears to stress that a certiorari proceeding is limited despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be
in scope and narrow in character. The special civil action for certiorari lies equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not
only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, enough.38 Here, there is none.
or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors
of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or
conclusions of the lower court.

This Court finds that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan did not
commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it the denied peititioner's Urgent Omnibus Motion/s (For
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause).

From the foregoing, it is shown that the letter request and purchase
request are enough to engender a well-founded belief that the crime

8
9