Verzano v. Paro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Filemon A. Verzano, Jr. was dismissed from Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth) based on an administrative complaint filed by respondents Francis Victor D. Paro and Janet A. Florencio, alleging violation of company policy on prohibited sale of drug samples and unauthorized "channeling" of stocks. Wyeth conducted an investigation, gave Verzano an opportunity to explain, and subsequently terminated his employment. Procedural History: Verzano filed an illegal dismissal case against Wyeth. Wyeth attached the affidavits of Paro and Florencio to its position paper. Verzano then filed a criminal complaint for perjury, false testimony, and incriminatory machination against Paro and Florencio, alleging falsehoods in their affidavits. The City Prosecutor dismissed Verzano's complaint for lack of probable cause, which was affirmed upon reconsideration. The Regional State Prosecutor reversed this dismissal, directing the filing of informations for perjury. Consequently, informations were filed against Paro and Florencio. They filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the Regional State Prosecutor's resolutions. The CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) suspended proceedings. The CA granted the petition, reversing the Regional State Prosecutor's resolutions, finding grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied Verzano's motion for reconsideration. The MTCC later granted the prosecution's motion to withdraw the informations, rendering the case moot and academic. The Petition: Petitioner Verzano filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decision and resolution. He raised issues regarding mootness due to the filing of cases in court, whether the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, and the propriety of the certiorari petition filed with the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition filed by private respondents with the Court of Appeals had been rendered moot and academic by the filing of the cases in court. Whether the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the resolution of the City Prosecutor. Whether the petition for certiorari filed by herein private respondents with the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The Court held that the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional State Prosecutor. The Court also affirmed that the CA's review under Rule 65 was proper, and that the subsequent dismissal of the informations by the MTCC rendered the case moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness due to the filing of cases in court: The Court clarified that while the filing of an information in court generally places the case under the court's jurisdiction, this does not preclude a review of prosecutorial actions tainted with grave abuse of discretion, particularly under a Rule 65 petition. Citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that the Secretary of Justice's power of review, and by extension the CA's power to correct grave abuse of discretion, may still be exercised even after an information has been filed. The Court noted that the MTCC's suspension of proceedings was a proper exercise of its jurisdiction in light of the pending appeal to the Regional State Prosecutor and the subsequent petition before the CA. However, the ultimate dismissal of the informations by the MTCC, being an exercise of its discretion, rendered the case moot and academic. On whether the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly observed that the Regional State Prosecutor reversed the City Prosecutor's resolution solely on the ground that the respondents failed to submit counter-affidavits, without making an independent assessment of the evidence. The Court found the Regional State Prosecutor's interpretation of Section 3(d) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Procedure to be flawed, as it suggested that the failure to submit counter-affidavits automatically warrants a finding of probable cause. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a counter-affidavit is to allow respondents to refute allegations, and its absence does not automatically equate to guilt or probable cause. The Court also found the Regional State Prosecutor's reliance on Section 3(b) of Rule 112 to be misplaced, as the issuance of a subpoena does not inherently signify the existence of probable cause. On whether the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy: The Court held that the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy. While the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires an appeal to the Secretary of Justice, this principle admits exceptions. The Court found that the actions of the Regional State Prosecutor were patently illegal and amounted to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, thus constituting an exception. Therefore, the CA's exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction to correct such grave abuse of discretion was justified.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals may correct acts of prosecutorial officers tainted with grave abuse of discretion, even after informations have been filed in court, as such review falls under its certiorari jurisdiction. Furthermore, the dismissal of informations filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTCC) is subject to the MTCC's discretion, and such dismissal renders the case moot and academic.