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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173081)

Facts: criminal complaint, preliminary investigation, and appearances

On 2 April 2004 petitioners filed a criminal complaint (docketed I.S. No. 04-4682) against Dee for estafa and violation of Article 116 of the Labor Code (withholding of wages and alleged kickbacks). The Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon issued a subpoena for Dee for preliminary investigation on 18 May 2004; Dee repeatedly failed to appear. Villordon declared the case submitted for resolution on 29 July 2004. On 5 November 2004 Dee filed a motion to reopen and attached a Counter-Affidavit; the Division Chief approved reopening. Hearings were scheduled for 28 December 2004 (petitioners appeared and undertook to file a Reply-Affidavit on 18 January 2005) and 3 February 2005; Dee failed to appear on those hearings and petitioners ultimately did not file the Reply-Affidavit. After no further action by Villordon, petitioners pursued administrative and judicial remedies.

Petitioners’ administrative and judicial remedies prior to RTC petition

Because of the delay, petitioners filed a grievance/request for assistance with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) on 22 March 2005 and later filed an administrative complaint against Villordon under Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) alleging neglect of duty; the OMB dismissed the matter on 31 July 2007. On 19 September 2005 petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC praying that Villordon be ordered to resolve the criminal complaint and to award moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

RTC proceedings and rulings

In an Order dated 5 January 2006 the RTC dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of merit, holding that petitioners did not exhaust administrative remedies and should have first sought relief with the Chief City Prosecutor (Villordon’s superior) before resorting to the courts. The RTC found that Villordon had in fact granted a reopening per notation of his Division Chief and scheduled hearings which the parties failed to pursue, and that Villordon reasonably awaited further pleadings (the Reply-Affidavit) before making a resolution. The RTC denied reconsideration on 30 May 2006.

Issue presented to the Supreme Court

Whether petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus compelling the investigating prosecutor Villordon to resolve the preliminary investigation and file the criminal information against Dee — that is, whether Villordon unlawfully neglected a duty or gravely abused his discretion, and whether petitioners lacked any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Governing law and legal standards applied

The Court applied the 1987 Constitution (as required for decisions after 1990) and pertinent procedural provisions: Rule 112, Sections 1 and 2, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (defining preliminary investigation and identifying officers authorized to conduct it) and Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (standards for mandamus). The jurisprudential standard reiterated by the Court is that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control the legitimate exercise of discretion; mandamus will only review a prosecutor’s discretion where grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown. The Court cited precedent including Hipos v. Judge Bay and other cases referenced in the record to frame the limited scope of mandamus against prosecutorial discretion.

Supreme Court’s analysis and reasoning

The Court emphasized that conducting a preliminary investigation and determining whether to file an information is an executive/quasi‑judicial function lodged in the prosecutor and involves the exercise of discretion. Given the procedural history, Villordon had declared the case submitted, then reopened it upon Dee’s motion and scheduled hearings; Villordon instructed petitioners to file a Reply-Affidavit to rebut Dee’s Counter-Affidavit but the pe

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 173081)

Case Before the Court

Nature of the petition: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105 Orders dated 5 January 2006 and 30 May 2006 in Civil Case No. Q-05-56367. (G.R. No. 173081, December 15, 2010.)
Decision below: RTC dismissed petition for mandamus for lack of merit (Order dated 5 January 2006) and denied motion for reconsideration (Order dated 30 May 2006).
Supreme Court disposition: Petition denied; RTC Orders affirmed. Decision penned by Carpio, J.; Nachura, Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Parties and Caption

Petitioners: Ernesto Marcelo, Jr. and Lauro Llames (joined by two others in the original criminal complaint).
Respondent: Rafael R. Villordon, Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
Other principal person concerned in the underlying criminal complaint: Eduardo R. Dee, Sr., former employer of petitioners and President and General Manager of New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc.

Procedural History (Chronology of Proceedings)

2 April 2004: Petitioners filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (docketed as I.S. No. 04-4682) for estafa and violation of Article 116 of the Labor Code (withholding of wages and kickbacks) against Eduardo R. Dee, Sr.
28 April 2004: Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon issued a subpoena for Dee to appear at preliminary investigation scheduled for 18 May 2004; Dee failed to appear.
Subsequent dates in 2004: Case reset several times due to Dee’s non-appearance; petitioners repeatedly requested that the case be declared submitted for resolution.
29 July 2004: Villordon declared the case submitted for resolution.
5 November 2004: Dee filed a motion to reopen and attached his Counter-Affidavit.
8 December 2004: Assistant City Prosecutor Rogelio Velasco, Villordon’s Division Chief, approved the motion to reopen.
28 December 2004: Villordon scheduled a hearing; Dee did not appear; petitioners were present and signed minutes stating they would appear and submit their Reply-Affidavit on 18 January 2005.
18 January 2005 and 3 February 2005: Hearings scheduled; on both dates Dee did not appear and petitioners did not submit the Reply-Affidavit.
22 March 2005: Petitioners filed a proceeding for grievance/request for assistance with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
After follow-ups and perceived inaction, petitioners filed an administrative case for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against Villordon with the OMB.
31 July 2007: OMB dismissed the administrative case against Villordon.
19 September 2005: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC, Branch 105, seeking an order compelling Villordon to resolve the preliminary investigation and file information against Dee and seeking damages and fees.
5 January 2006: RTC dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of merit, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and other grounds; detailed reasoning included in the order.
30 May 2006: RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts (Detailed)

Petitioners were former employees of Eduardo R. Dee, Sr., who served as President and General Manager of New Sampaguita Builders Construction Incorporated.
Petitioners alleged non-payment of wages and filed criminal charges for estafa and violation of Article 116 of the Labor Code (withholding of wages and kickbacks).
Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon conducted preliminary investigation proceedings; several scheduled hearings were not attended by Dee, leading Villordon to declare the case submitted for resolution on 29 July 2004.
Dee later filed a motion to reopen with a Counter-Affidavit; the motion was approved by Villordon’s Division Chief, after which hearings were scheduled for 18 January 2005 and 3 February 2005.
At the 18 January 2005 hearing petitioners were present and agreed to submit a Reply-Affidavit; they failed to submit this Reply-Affidavit and neither they nor Dee appeared on 3 February 2005.
No subsequent substantive action followed; petitioners pursued recourse before the OMB and the RTC.

Reliefs Sought by Petitioners in RTC Petition for Mandamus

An order compelling Villordon to resolve the criminal complaint and file the necessary information against Eduardo R. Dee, Sr.
Moral damages in the amount of P25,000 each.
Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.
Attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000, plus P2,000 per court appearance.
Costs of suit.

RTC’s Reasoning for Dismissal (as stated in RTC Orders)

Principal ground: Petitioners failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief; they should have first referred the matter to the Chief City Prosecutor, Villordon’s superior, t