Marcelo v. Villordon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Ernesto Marcelo, Jr. and Lauro Llames, along with two others, filed a criminal complaint against their former employer, Eduardo R. Dee, Sr., for non-payment of wages. The complaint stemmed from Dee's alleged failure to pay them as President and General Manager of New Sampaguita Builders Construction Incorporated. 2. Procedural History: Respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Rafael R. Villordon issued subpoenas for a preliminary investigation, but Dee repeatedly failed to appear. After several resettings, Villordon declared the case submitted for resolution. Dee subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which was approved, leading to further hearings where Dee again failed to appear. Petitioners then filed a grievance with the Office of the Ombudsman and later a case for violation of R.A. 3019 against Villordon, which was dismissed. Concurrently, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105, seeking to compel Villordon to resolve the criminal complaint. The RTC dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of merit and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a decision affirmed upon reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the RTC's dismissal orders. They argue that mandamus is the proper remedy because Villordon allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion by unreasonably refusing to file an information, asserting that the evidence clearly warranted such action. They contend that the investigating prosecutor's resolution had not yet been submitted to the chief city prosecutor for approval, thus Villordon had a ministerial duty to act. Petitioners pray for the reversal of the RTC's decision and for the issuance of the writ of mandamus to compel Villordon to resolve the preliminary investigation and file the criminal information against Dee, along with damages and costs.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Assistant City Prosecutor to resolve the preliminary investigation and file a criminal information against Eduardo R. Dee, Sr., and whether the respondent Assistant City Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion by unreasonably refusing to file an information. Whether petitioners failed to exhaust other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies before seeking the writ of mandamus.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Orders dated 5 January 2006 and 30 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105, in Civil Case No. Q-05-56367, dismissing the petition for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus to compel the resolution of a preliminary investigation and the finding of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The determination of whether to file a criminal information is an executive function that rests with the prosecutor and involves the exercise of quasi-judicial discretion. In this case, due to the non-appearance of the respondent employer at several hearings and the petitioners' failure to submit a Reply-Affidavit to controvert the employer's Counter-Affidavit, the prosecutor could not be faulted for not yet being convinced to file an information. The Court reiterated that mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion by a public officer, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that petitioners failed to clearly establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor. The assertion that the evidence against Dee was strong was not sufficiently proven, relying only on the petitioners' declarations without other corroborating proof. The circumstances, including the employer's motion to reopen and the subsequent failure of both parties to appear at scheduled hearings, indicated that the prosecutor might still need to consider more evidence and was giving both parties a chance to submit supporting documents. Therefore, the prosecutor's inaction did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. On the availability of other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies: The Court ruled that petitioners failed to demonstrate the absence of other adequate remedies. A more expeditious recourse would have been to submit their Reply-Affidavit to allow the prosecutor to make a proper determination. Instead, petitioners resorted to filing multiple cases in different fora, including the Office of the Ombudsman and the RTC, which the Court viewed as forum-shopping. The existence of the remedy to submit the required pleading was considered a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that petitioners failed to avail themselves of before seeking the extraordinary writ of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
The writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a prosecutor to file a criminal information when the decision to do so involves the exercise of discretion, unless there is a grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, mandamus is not proper if there are other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available.