G.R. No. 193398 - Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Gutierrez

Petitioners, including Arnel U. Ty, Marie Antonette Ty, Jason Ong, Willy Dy, and Alvin Ty, are stockholders and members of the board of directors of Omni Gas Corporation, a company engaged in trading and refilling LPG cylinders.
Omni is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as evidenced by its General Information Sheet (GIS) and holds a local mayor’s permit for operation in Pasig City.

On March 22, 2004, the JGAC Law Offices, acting on behalf of Shellane Dealers Association, Inc., Petron Gasul Dealers Association, Inc., and Totalgaz Dealers Association, Inc., sent a letter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) requesting surveillance and investigation of establishments engaged in alleged illegal trading and refilling of LPG cylinders.
The investigation centered on allegations that Omni was refilling branded LPG cylinders without authority from the major petroleum companies—Pilipinas Shell, Petron, and Total—as required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1865.

NBI agents, including Agent De Jemil and Agent Kawada, conducted surveillance in March and April 2004 and executed a test-buy on April 15, 2004 by having eight branded LPG cylinders refilled at Omni.
The test-buy revealed that the cylinders were refilled without the necessary mark seals, with one cylinder being underfilled, thereby triggering the allegation of violations under:

Sec. 2(a) (illegal trading in petroleum products) in relation to Sec. 3(c) (refilling without written authority) and Sec. 4, and
Sec. 2(c) (underfilling of LPG cylinders) in relation to Sec. 4.

On April 28, 2004, based on affidavits and supporting evidence, Agent De Jemil filed an application for search warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City, leading to the seizure of various LPG cylinders from Omni’s premises.

Following the seizure and consolidated return of search warrants, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, on November 7, 2005, issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to charge Omni and, by extension, its petitioners with violations of BP 33.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the resolution; however, their motion was denied by the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor on May 3, 2006.
The Office of the Secretary of Justice subsequently issued a Resolution on October 9, 2006 reversing the earlier Joint Resolution by dismissing the charges, basing its decision on the isolated nature of the underfilling incident and the argument that the cylinders were owned by consumers rather than the major petroleum companies.
On December 14, 2006, a motion for reconsideration by Agent De Jemil was also denied, prompting him to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65.
On September 28, 2007, the CA reinstated the November 7, 2005 Joint Resolution despite earlier resolutions of the Secretary of Justice having been reversed, and noted interventions by Petron and the Nationwide Association of Consumers, Inc. (NACI) in the proceedings.
Petitioners later assailed the CA Resolution dated March 14, 2008, denying their motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition for review.

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Agent De Jemil is the proper legal remedy to challenge the resolutions of the Office of the Secretary of Justice.

Whether there is probable cause to believe that Omni violated Section 2(a) (illegal trading/refilling without authority) of BP 33, as amended, by refilling branded LPG cylinders without written authorization from the major petroleum companies.
Whether there is probable cause to believe that Omni violated Section 2(c) of BP 33, as amended, for underfilling at least one LPG cylinder.

Whether petitioners, as members of Omni’s board of directors, can be held criminally liable for the alleged violations despite not being directly involved in the day-to-day management of the corporation.
In particular, whether only those petitioners who are also corporate officers and directly managing the business (e.g., President) should be held liable, while others should be excluded from liability.