G.R. No. 173081 - Marcelo, Jr. vs. Villordon

On April 2, 2004, petitioners Ernesto Marcelo, Jr. and Lauro Llames, together with two other complainants, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against their former employer, Eduardo R. Dee, Sr.
The complaint arose from allegations concerning the non-payment of wages to petitioners in their capacities as President and General Manager of New Sampaguita Builders Construction Incorporated.

On April 28, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Rafael R. Villordon, acting in his capacity for Quezon City, issued a subpoena to Eduardo Dee, Sr. to appear at the scheduled preliminary investigation on May 18, 2004.
Dee failed to appear on the scheduled date, and subsequent hearings were similarly affected by his repeated non-appearance.
Each time the case was reset for further preliminary investigation, petitioners repeatedly called for the matter to be declared submitted for resolution.
On July 29, 2004, Villordon declared the case as submitted for resolution given the consistent non-appearance of the respondent.

On November 5, 2004, in an attempt to revive the proceedings, Eduardo Dee, Sr. filed a motion to reopen the case and attached a counter-affidavit.
Assistant City Prosecutor Rogelio Velasco, Villordon’s Division Chief, approved Dee’s motion on December 8, 2004.
A hearing was subsequently scheduled for December 28, 2004, wherein petitioners attended and signed the minutes, committing to submit a Reply-Affidavit at the next hearing.
A follow-up hearing on February 3, 2005 was set, but on this occasion neither the respondent nor the petitioners appeared, and no reply-affidavit was filed.

On March 22, 2005, petitioners sought recourse by filing a grievance/request for assistance with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
After a period of follow-up without any positive action, the petitioners filed a case for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 against Villordon before the OMB, which was later dismissed on July 31, 2007.
Parallelly, on September 19, 2005, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105, seeking an order that would compel Villordon to resolve the criminal complaint by filing a criminal information against Dee.
In the RTC Order dated January 5, 2006, the court dismissed the petition for mandamus for lack of merit, emphasizing that petitioners had not exhausted the available administrative remedies and noting the discretionary nature of the prosecutor’s function.
A motion for reconsideration was later filed by petitioners, which the RTC denied on May 30, 2006.

Petitioners elevated the matter by filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s dismissal of their mandamus petition.
The principal contention was the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of Villordon for not filing the criminal information against Dee, despite what petitioners argued to be sufficient evidence.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon to resolve the pending preliminary investigation and file a criminal information against Eduardo Dee, Sr.

Whether Villordon’s non-resolution of the case constitutes an unlawful neglect of duty, warranting the issuance of a mandamus.
Whether the petitioners exhausted available administrative remedies before resorting to an extraordinary remedy such as mandamus.

Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this context given the discretionary nature of the prosecutor’s function under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Can mandamus compel an officer to perform an act involving the exercise of prosecutorial judgment?
Should the filing of reply-affidavit and other remedial actions have been undertaken by the petitioners as part of their available plain and speedy remedies?