Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

NAVA VS. NBI, G.R. NO.

134509, APRIL 12, 2005 remedy should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
However, even assuming that this remedy was pursued, since there is nothing on record
DOCTRINE: Although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian, appeals from the to even suggest that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing
orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now to have the case against Nava dismissed, the NBI insists that the Petition must fail.
cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the
Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Nava in his Consolidated Reply stressed that the instant Petition was filed on 3
jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court September 1998 before the promulgation of the Fabian case on 16 September 1998;
to set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto, the SC has and maintained that it was then his honest position that Section 27 of R.A. 6770 was
held that the Court has jurisdiction over such petitions questioning resolutions or orders available as a remedy in non-administrative cases notwithstanding its silence on the
of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Here, as Nava himself beseeched matter. In this instance, however, he posited that the Court of Appeals may likewise not
the Court to consider his Petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, we shall treat take cognizance of the Petition in light of the Court's ruling in Tirol, Jr. v. Justice del
the same as one. Rosario, that the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted to an aggrieved party
in administrative disciplinary cases as ruled in Fabian is not available to a party
FACTS: The case subject of this Petition emanated from anonymous letter-complaints7 aggrieved by an order and decision of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, like finding
filed before the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao alleging that fake Equivalent probable cause to indict accused persons. Nava implored the Court to consider the
Record Forms (ERFs) of several teachers of the Davao City National High School were instant Petition instead as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as
made the bases for the Plantilla Allocation List (PAL) for calendar year 1988 and for the the actuations of the Ombudsman amount to a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
teachers' corresponding promotion and salary upgrading. The Office of the Ombudsman lack or excess of its jurisdiction
in Mindanao referred the matter to the NBI in Region XI (NBI-XI) and directed it to
conduct a fact-finding investigation.9 The investigation by the NBI-XI disclosed, among ISSUE: Whether or not Nava's appeal should have been taken to the CA by way of a
others, the submission by a certain Myrna Rosales-Velez of a Service Record (DECS petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Form No. 93) containing fabricated facts and the handing in of fake ERFs by other
teachers which were the bases of the PAL approved as correct by Nava who was then HELD: No. The SC held that THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILS. Reiterating Tirol,
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Regional Director for Region the SC held in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), that although as
XI.10 The NBI recommended the filing of appropriate charges against the teachers and a consequence of the decision in Fabian, appeals from the orders, directives, or
officials concerned. decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court
of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted
Acting on the findings of the NBI, the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao, in a Joint with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil
Resolution dated 23 October 1996, recommended the indictment of Nava before the action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to set aside the
Sandiganbayan for Falsification of Official Documents thru Reckless Imprudence. Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto, the SC has held that the Court
has jurisdiction over such petitions questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the
Thus, the filing of an Information against Nava and his co-accused Granada before the Ombudsman in criminal cases. As Nava himself beseeched the Court to consider his
Sandiganbayan on 20 November 1996. Petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, we shall treat the same as one.
Nava filed before the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan a Motion for
Reinvestigation which was granted in a Resolution dated 22 September 1997. On 4
May 1998, Special Prosecution Officer Manuel A. Corpuz (hereinafter, Special
Prosecutor) recommended the dismissal of the charges against Nava and Granada for
insufficiency of evidence. This recommendation was, however, disapproved by the
Ombudsman. Hence, the instant Petition in which Nava contends that the Ombudsman
gravely erred or was "manifestly mistaken" in disapproving the recommendation of
dismissal of the case against him, which disapproval, he further avers, is based on an
erroneous conclusion drawn from "undisputed" facts which assumes the nature of a
question of law reviewable by this Honorable Court.

The NBI pointed out that the instant Petition is one for review on certiorari pursuant to
Section 27 of R.A. 6770 in relation to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which provision of
law had already been declared unconstitutional in Fabian v. Desierto and reiterated in
Namuhe v. Ombudsman. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, appeals from orders, directives
or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to
the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
In any event, as the instant case is not an administrative disciplinary case, the proper
OROSA VS. ROA, G.R. NO. 140423, JULY 14, 2006
As stated at the outset hereof, the CA, in the herein assailed Resolution dated July 8,
DOCTRINE: 1999, dismissed petitioner's petition for review. Partly says the CA in its dismissal
 DOJ -> SOJ-> Office of the President -> CA via R43 Resolution: “The Pasig City Prosecution Office and the Department of Justice are not
among the quasi-judicial agencies included in Section 1 of Rule 43 whose final orders
 Being thus under the control of the President, the Secretary of Justice, or, to be or resolutions are subject to review by the Court of Appeals.”
precise, his decision is subject to review of the former. In fine, recourse from the
decision of the Secretary of Justice should be to the President, instead of the CA, ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
under the established principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The thrust Procedure is a proper mode of appeal from a resolution of the Secretary of Justice
of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that if an appeal or remedy directing the prosecutor to withdraw an information in a criminal case.
obtains or is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted
to before resort can be made to the courts. Immediate recourse to the court would HELD: No. Rule 43 governs all appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial
be premature and precipitate; subject to defined exception, a case is susceptible bodies to the CA. Section 1 thereof provides:
of dismissal for lack of cause of action should a party fail to exhaust administrative
remedies. Notably, Section 1, supra, of Rule 43 includes the Office of the President Section 1. Scope.― This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders
in the agencies named therein, thereby accentuating the fact that appeals from of the Court of Tax Appeals, and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions
rulings of department heads must first be taken to and resolved by that office before of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
any appellate recourse may be resorted to. functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board
of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
FACTS: On November 27, 1996, petitioner, a dentist by profession, filed with the Pasig President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil
City Prosecution Office a complaint-affidavit charging respondent Alberto C. Roa, Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
likewise a dentist, with the crime of libel. The complaint, docketed in said office as I.S. National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
No. 96-5442, stemmed from an article entitled "Truth vs. Rumors: Questions against Dr. Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Orosa" written by respondent and published in the March-April 1996 issue of the Dental Act No. 6657, Government Service and Insurance System, Employees'
Trading Post, a bi-monthly publication of the Dental Exchange Co., Inc. In gist, the Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission,
article delved into the possibility of a father, who happened to be an examiner in a Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction
licensure examination for dentistry where his sons were examinees, manipulating the Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
examinations or the results thereof to enable his children to top the same.
As may be noted, the DOJ is not among the agencies expressly enumerated under
In his complaint-affidavit, petitioner alleged that the article in question is defamatory as Section 1 of Rule 43, albeit any suggestion that it does not perform quasi-judicial
it besmirched his honor and reputation as a dentist and as the topnotcher in the dental functions may have to be rejected. However, its absence from the list of agencies
board examinations held in May 1994. mentioned thereunder does not, by this fact alone, already imply its exclusion from the
coverage of said Rule. This is because said Section 1 uses the phrase "among these
After preliminary investigation, Pasig City Prosecutor Noel Paz issued a Resolution, agencies," thereby implying that the enumeration made is not exclusive of the agencies
dismissing petitioner's complaint. therein listed.

Petitioner appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Acting on the appeal, Chief There is compelling reason to believe, however, that the exclusion of the DOJ from the
State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño issued a Resolution (Zuño Resolution), setting aside list is deliberate, being in consonance with the constitutional power of control4 lodged
the findings of the City Prosecutor and directing the latter to file an Information for libel in the President over executive departments, bureaus and offices. This power of control,
against respondent. Accordingly, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, an which even Congress cannot limit, let alone withdraw, means the power of the Chief
Information for libel was filed against respondent, thereat docketed as Criminal Case Executive to review, alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate, e.g., members
No. 114517. of the Cabinet and heads of line agencies, had done in the performance of their duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Adversely affected, respondent appealed to the Secretary of Justice. On October 28,
1998, then Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas reversed the Zuño Resolution and directed Being thus under the control of the President, the Secretary of Justice, or, to be precise,
the City Prosecutor of Pasig to withdraw the Information earlier filed with the RTC. his decision is subject to review of the former. In fine, recourse from the decision of the
Secretary of Justice should be to the President, instead of the CA, under the established
Petitioner seasonably moved for a reconsideration but his motion was denied by the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The thrust of the rule on exhaustion
Secretary of Justice in his Resolution of May 12, 1999. of administrative remedies is that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within
the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to
Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA on a petition for review under Rule 432 of the 1997 the courts. Immediate recourse to the court would be premature and precipitate; subject
Rules of Civil Procedure, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP No. 53190. to defined exception, a case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action should
a party fail to exhaust administrative remedies. Notably, Section 1, supra, of Rule 43
includes the Office of the President in the agencies named therein, thereby accentuating
the fact that appeals from rulings of department heads must first be taken to and
resolved by that office before any appellate recourse may be resorted to.
B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. VS. ALZUL, SECOND DIVISION, G.R. NO. 169501, JUNE 8, SC: Denied the Petition for Review by Yu and affirmed the CA’s decision.
2007
On February 17, 1989, [petitioner] notified [respondent] that Contract to Sell No. 867
DOCTRINE: was declared rescinded and cancelled. On April 28, 1989, the subject lots were sold to
spouses Carlos and Sandra Ventura who were allegedly surprised to find the annotation
 There can be no question that only the award, judgment, or final order or resolution of lis pendens in their owner’s duplicate title.
issued by the lower court or agency and appealed from has to be certified as
true.The second set of attachments refers to the "certified true copies of such 2nd Case- Sps. Venturafiled an action for Quieting of Title with Prayer for
material portions of the record referred to therein." Cancellation of Annotation and Damages.
RTC: ruled in favor of the Sps. Ventura.
Material is defined as "important; more or less necessary; having influence or CA: Reversed.
effect; going to the merits; having to do with matter, as distinguished from form." SC: Affirmed. MR was filed but was subsequently denied.
Thus, material portions of the records are those parts of the records that are
relevant and directly bear on the issues and arguments raised and discussed in the On July 12, 1996, an Entry of Judgment was issued. In an attempt to comply with the
petition. They may include any of the pleadings that are subject of any issue, Supreme Court’s directive, herein [respondent] tried to serve payment upon [petitioner]
documentary evidence, transcripts of testimonial evidence, and parts of the records on August 29, 1996, August 30, 1996 and September 28, 1996. On all these dates,
pertinent and relevant to the grounds supporting the petition. The attachment of the however, [petitioner] allegedly refused to accept payment from [respondent].
material portions is subject to the qualification that these are referred to or cited in
the petition. Thus, only the material parts specified in the petition have to be On November 11, 1996, [respondent] filed a Manifestation in GR No. 109078 informing
appended and that would be sufficient compliance with the rule as to form. the Supreme Court that [petitioner], on three (3) occasions, refused to accept [her]
payment of the balance in the amount of Php187,380.00. On January 29, 1997, a
 Here, the petitioner claims respondent’s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 failed to Resolution was issued by the Supreme Court referring the case to the court of origin for
attach material documents of the records of the HLURB and the OP. Petitioner’s appropriate action, on account of [respondent’s] manifestation. On October 21, 1997,
postulation must fail. Sec. 7 of Rule 43 does not prescribe outright rejection of [respondent’s] counsel wrote a letter to [petitioner] citing the latter’s refusal to accept
the petition if it is not accompanied by the required documents but simply her payment on several occasions. It was also mentioned therein that due to its refusal,
gives the discretion to the CA to determine whether such breach constitutes [respondent] would just consign the balance due to [petitioner] before the proper judicial
a "sufficient ground" for dismissal. Apparently, petitioner was not able to authority.
convince the CA that the alleged missing attachments deprived said court of the
full opportunity and facility in examining and resolving the petition. It has not been 3rd Case - Thinking that an action for consignation alone would not be sufficient to allow
satisfactorily shown that the pleadings filed by petitioner with the quasi-judicial for the execution of a final judgment in her favor, [respondent] decided to file an action
agencies have material bearing or importance to the CA petition. Such pleadings for consignation and specific performance against [petitioner] before the Housing and
could have been attached to the comment of respondent and hence, no prejudice Land Use Regulatory Board on March 12, 1998.
would be suffered. Thus, the CA did not exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or
oppressive manner by giving due course to the petition. HLURB: Dismissed the case.
OP: Dismissed for being filed out of time.
FACTS: On February 10, 1975, [respondent] Rosario T. Alzul purchased from CA: Reversed the decision.
[petitioner] B.E. San Diego, Inc. four (4) subdivision lots. [Respondent] took immediate
possession of the subject property, setting up a perimeter fence and constructing a Thus, this petition.
house thereon. On July 25, 1977, [respondent] signed a "Conditional Deed of
Assignment and Transfer of Rights" which assigned to a certain Wilson P. Yu her rights Petitioner claims respondent’s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 failed to attach material
under the Contract to Sell. [Petitioner] was notified of the execution of such deed. Later documents of the records of the HLURB and the OP. They cry foul that none of the
on, the Contract to Sell in [respondent’s] name was cancelled, and [petitioner] issued a pleadings filed with the HLURB and the OP found their way into the CA petition. It prays
new one in favor of Yu although it was also denominated as "Contract to Sell No. 867". that the CA petition should have been dismissed under Sec. 7 of Rule 43 due to the
On July 4, 1979, [respondent] informed [petitioner] about Yu’s failure and refusal to pay lack of needed attachments.
the amounts due under the conditional deed. She also manifested that she would be
the one to pay the installments due to respondent on account of Yu’s default. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent’s petition before the CA is sufficient.

1st Case - Respondent commenced an action for rescission of the conditional HELD: YES. On the procedural issue, petitioner B.E. San Diego, Inc. assails the
deed of assignment against Yu. sufficiency of respondent Alzul’s CA petition as the latter, in violation of the rules,
allegedly lacked the essential and relevant pleadings filed with the HLURB and the OP.
RTC: Ruled in favor of Alzul.
CA: Affirmed. Section 6 of Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertinently provides:
of the issues of the petition. The availability of such documents to the ponente and
SEC. 6. Contents of the petition.—The petition for review shall x x x (c) be members of a Division can easily provide the substance and support to the merits of the
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the grounds put forward by the petitioner. Moreover, the processing time for the review and
award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true resolution of the petition is greatly abbreviated, thereby obviating intolerable delays.
copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers; x x x Lastly, it has to be explained whether the material portions of the records have to be
certified as true by the clerk of court or his/her duly authorized representative as
The above proviso explicitly requires the following to be appended to a petition: 1) provided in Sec. 6 of Rule 43. If strictly required, the rule to require attachment of
clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final certified true copies of the material portions will surely make the preparation of the
order, or resolution appealed from; 2) certified true copies of such material portions of petition more tedious, cumbersome, and expensive. It should therefore be construed
the record referred to in the petition; and 3) other supporting papers. that merely clear and legible copies of the material portions will suffice. The rules on the
different modes of appeal from the lower courts or quasi-judicial agencies to the CA
Obviously, the main reason for the prescribed attachments is to facilitate the review and reveal that it is only Rule 43 that specifically states that the material portions to be
evaluation of the petition by making readily available to the CA all the orders, appended to the petition should be certified true copies. Rule 41 of course does not
resolutions, decisions, pleadings, transcripts, documents, and pieces of evidence that require attachment of the pertinent records since the entire records are elevated to the
are material and relevant to the issues presented in the petition without relying on the CA. Rule 42 on petition for review from the trial court in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
case records of the lower court. The rule is the reviewing court can determine the merits to the CA speaks of plain copies of the material portions of the record as would support
of the petition solely on the basis of the submissions by the parties14 without the use of the allegations of the petition.16 Even Rule 45 on appeal by certiorari from the CA to
the records of the court a quo. It is a fact that it takes several months before the records this Court simply speaks of material portions of the records without indicating that these
are elevated to the higher court, thus the resulting delay in the review of the petition. should be certified true copies. Rule 46 on original cases to this Court only requires
The attachment of all essential and necessary papers and documents is mandatory; plain copies of the material portions of the records. Finally, Rule 65 on special civil
otherwise, the petition can be rejected outright under Sec. 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of actions requires only copies of relevant and pertinent pleadings and documents.
Court, which provides:
From the foregoing premises, the inescapable conclusion is that only plain and clear
Effect of failure to comply with requirements.—The failure of the petitioner to copies of the material portions of the records are required under Sec. 3 of Rule 43. This
comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket finding is buttressed by our ruling in Cadayona v. CA, where it was held that only
and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the judgments or final orders of the lower courts are needed to be certified true copies or
contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be duplicate originals.17 There is no plausible reason why a different treatment or stricter
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. requirement should be applied to petitions under Rule 43.

To prevent premature dismissals, the requirements under Sec. 6 on the contents of the The last requirement is the attachment of "other supporting papers." Again, it is only in
petition have to be elucidated. Rule 43 that we encounter the requirement of annexing "supporting papers" to the
petition. This can be interpreted to mean other documents, pictures, and pieces of
First, there can be no question that only the award, judgment, or final order or resolution evidence not forming parts of the records of the lower court or agency that can bolster
issued by the lower court or agency and appealed from has to be certified as true. and shore up the petition. While not so specified in Sec. 3 of Rule 43, it is inarguable
that said papers must also be relevant and material to the petition; otherwise, the
The second set of attachments refers to the "certified true copies of such material attachments would be mere surplusages and devoid of use and value.
portions of the record referred to therein."
Petitioner’s postulation must fail.
Material is defined as "important; more or less necessary; having influence or effect;
going to the merits; having to do with matter, as distinguished from form." Thus, material Sec. 7 of Rule 43 does not prescribe outright rejection of the petition if it is not
portions of the records are those parts of the records that are relevant and directly bear accompanied by the required documents but simply gives the discretion to the CA to
on the issues and arguments raised and discussed in the petition. They may include determine whether such breach constitutes a "sufficient ground" for dismissal.
any of the pleadings that are subject of any issue, documentary evidence, transcripts of Apparently, petitioner was not able to convince the CA that the alleged missing
testimonial evidence, and parts of the records pertinent and relevant to the grounds attachments deprived said court of the full opportunity and facility in examining and
supporting the petition. The attachment of the material portions is subject to the resolving the petition. It has not been satisfactorily shown that the pleadings filed by
qualification that these are referred to or cited in the petition. Thus, only the material petitioner with the quasi-judicial agencies have material bearing or importance to the
parts specified in the petition have to be appended and that would be sufficient CA petition. Such pleadings could have been attached to the comment of respondent
compliance with the rule as to form. and hence, no prejudice would be suffered. Thus, the CA did not exercise its discretion
in an arbitrary or oppressive manner by giving due course to the petition.
It would be prudent however for the petitioner to attach all parts of the records which
are relevant, necessary, or important in whatever way to be able to reach the resolution
In addition, it was noted in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz that the CA Revised Internal Rules
provide certain flexibility in the submission of additional documents:

When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies,
the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the
annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the
case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of
the Judicial Records Division.

In Rosa Yap Paras, et al. v. Judge Ismael O. Baldado, et al., the Court preferred the
determination of cases on the merits over technicality or procedural imperfections so
that the ends of justice would be served better.