Moran v. Office of the President
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed a complaint with the Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) against PGA Cars, Inc. for product imperfections of a BMW car sold to him. The CAO ruled in favor of Moran, Jr., ordering PGA Cars, Inc. to refund the purchase price, pay costs of litigation, and an administrative fine. Procedural History: PGA Cars, Inc. moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), who dismissed the appeal. PGA Cars, Inc. then appealed to the Office of the President (OP). The OP granted the appeal, reversed the DTI Secretary's decision, and dismissed the complaint, ruling that the DTI erred in holding PGA Cars, Inc. liable as it was only a seller and not the manufacturer, and the product imperfections were not proven. Moran, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration with the OP, which was denied. The Petition: Moran, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the OP. The CA dismissed the petition, holding it was a wrong mode of appeal and for failure to state material dates. The CA later denied the motion for reconsideration. Moran, Jr. passed away, and his widow, Concordia V. Moran, substituted him and filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was a wrong mode of appeal. Whether the Office of the President had appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the DTI Secretary in cases involving a violation of Republic Act No. 7394.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and declared the Decision and Order of the Office of the President null and void. Consequently, the Resolution of the DTI Secretary was reinstated and upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the propriety of the certiorari petition: The Court ruled in the negative, holding that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Under the Consumer Act (RA 7394), Article 166 expressly provides that a decision of the DTI Secretary becomes final unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the proper court. The complainant Moran, Jr. raised the issue of the OP's lack of jurisdiction, not being the proper court referred to in Article 166. The CA implicitly sustained the OP's reasoning that the President's power of control allowed the OP to review the DTI Secretary's decision, and that the proper remedy from an adverse order of the OP is a petition for review under Rule 43. However, the Court clarified that a special law, RA 7394, expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the "proper court." Therefore, the OP should not have entertained the appeal, and the complainant correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari before the CA to question the OP's alleged lack of jurisdiction. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available when a tribunal, board, or officer acted completely without jurisdiction, and a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void. While errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari. The CA thus erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of being an improper remedy. On the issue of the Office of the President's appellate jurisdiction: The Court held that the Resolution dated April 28, 2006, of the DTI Secretary had become final and executory due to the private respondent's failure to appeal the same within the 15-day reglementary period. The Court reiterated that Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, which governs appeals to the OP, recognizes an exception: a decision or order need not be appealed to the OP when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal. Republic Act No. 7394, being a special law, expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the proper court. Therefore, the private respondent should have elevated the case directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari, and the OP lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the DTI Secretary's decision. The OP's power of control over executive departments does not override the specific procedural remedy provided by RA 7394.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail an act of the Office of the President that acted without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of an appeal, especially when a special law provides for immediate judicial relief through certiorari.