Chong v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Cong. Glenn A. Chong, Mr. Charles Chong, and Mr. Romeo Arribe, challenging the Supreme Court's November 17, 2008 resolution that dismissed their petition for certiorari. The underlying dispute involved several preliminary investigation numbers (I.S. No. 2008-650, I.S. No. 2008-117, I.S. No. 2008-152, and I.S. No. 154) before the Department of Justice (DOJ). 2. Procedural History: Petitioners had filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul Joint Orders dated September 29, 2008, issued by the DOJ. These orders denied petitioners' motions for postponement and a motion to remand in relation to the aforementioned preliminary investigations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed this petition for lack of merit and for procedural deficiencies, including the failure to state material dates of receipt of the assailed orders and the lack of legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the orders. 3. The Petition: The current document is a resolution on the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's dismissal. The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy requiring strict adherence to procedural rules. It also noted that petitioners failed to observe the hierarchy of courts by directly filing with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction to review DOJ resolutions via certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify the direct recourse and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and procedural defects. Whether the petitioners correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari before the Supreme Court, considering the hierarchy of courts.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners is DENIED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court maintained its Resolution dated November 17, 2008, dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and procedural defects: The Court found no cogent reason to reconsider its previous resolution. It emphasized that a petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and requires strict observance of procedural rules, which petitioners failed to meet. The deficiencies included the failure to state material dates on the receipt of the assailed joint orders and the lack of legible duplicate original or certified true copies of these orders. The Court reiterated that non-observance of these procedural rules cannot be brushed aside as mere technicalities, especially in the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting a liberal interpretation. On Whether the petitioners correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari before the Supreme Court, considering the hierarchy of courts: The Court found that petitioners failed to observe the rule on the hierarchy of courts by directly seeking relief from the Supreme Court. It cited Talento v. Escalada to explain that while courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, this does not grant unrestricted freedom of choice of forum, and recourse should have been made first to the Court of Appeals. The Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule, such as when dictated by public welfare, the broader interest of justice, or when orders are patent nullities, but found none of these exceptions applicable in the present case. The issues raised were deemed within the normal precincts of an appeal, and the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review DOJ resolutions via certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy requiring strict observance of procedural rules, including the submission of material dates and legible copies of assailed orders. The Court also emphasized the principle of hierarchy of courts, stating that direct recourse to the Supreme Court is permissible only in exceptional cases involving public welfare, the broader interest of justice, patent nullity of orders, or when appeal is an inappropriate remedy, and that generally, appeals should be filed with the Court of Appeals.