Title
Non vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 251177
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2020
Former ERC commissioners challenged RTC Pasig's jurisdiction in a graft case, alleging improper venue under R.A. No. 10660. Supreme Court ruled in their favor, annulling RTC's orders and dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction.
criminal case
resolution
null and void
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251177)

Factual Background

The controversy arose when the Energy Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015, which required distribution utilities to adopt a competitive selection process (CSP) for securing power supply agreements. The ERC subsequently issued Resolution No. 1, Series of 2016, which moved the effective date of Resolution No. 13 from November 2015 to April 2016. The public interest group Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. (ABP) challenged Resolution No. 1-2016 in a petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the postponement favored MERALCO and its sister companies. ABP also filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioners and Jose Vicente B. Salazar for alleged violations including Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, grave abuse of authority, and other offenses.

Charging Instrument and Motion to Quash

The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information in the RTC of Pasig City charging petitioners and Salazar with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Information alleged that between November 6, 2015 and April 30, 2016 the accused conspiringly and with evident bad faith modified the implementation date of Resolution No. 13-2015 to the advantage of MERALCO, thereby allowing MERALCO to file certain PSAs on April 29, 2016 without complying with the CSP requirement. Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the ground that, pursuant to R.A. No. 10660, the case should have been tried by a Regional Trial Court outside the judicial region where the officials held office, rendering RTC Pasig City without jurisdiction.

Procedural History in the RTC and Supreme Court Filings

The RTC, Branch 155, Pasig City, denied the Motion to Quash in an Order dated September 10, 2018, reasoning that in the absence of implementing rules promulgated by the Supreme Court the default venue rule under Section 15(a), Rule 110 applied and that the offense was committed in Pasig City where the ERC is seated. The RTC denied reconsideration on October 22, 2018. Petitioners thereafter sought relief from the Supreme Court by filing the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge for failing to apply R.A. No. 10660. The Office of the Solicitor General manifested in support of petitioners’ position. The Office of the Ombudsman opposed, arguing that the proviso in R.A. No. 10660 is qualified by the phrase “subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court” and thus is not self-executing.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that R.A. No. 10660 conferred jurisdiction on the RTC for certain graft cases but fixed venue by requiring trial in a judicial region other than where the official holds office, and that the statute was effective when the Information was filed. They argued that the RTC of Pasig City therefore lacked jurisdiction and that certiorari was proper because the order denying the Motion to Quash was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman argued that the venue proviso in R.A. No. 10660 is conditioned upon Supreme Court rules and that in the absence of such rules the venue defaults to the place where the offense was committed under Section 15(a), Rule 110. The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with petitioners that certiorari was proper and that the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion.

Issue Presented

The single issue framed was whether the respondent judge gravely erred in denying the Motion to Quash on the ground that, by express provisions of R.A. No. 10660, the RTC Pasig City had no jurisdiction because the action must be tried by a Regional Trial Court in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.

Ruling of the Court

The Court granted the petition. It held that certiorari was a proper remedy in the circumstances because the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash. The Court concluded that R.A. No. 10660 vested jurisdiction in the RTC for the subject class of cases and that the statute’s proviso requiring trial in a judicial region other than where the official holds office was self-executing and applicable without awaiting rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Court found that jurisdiction is substantive and determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action. Because the Information alleged no damage to the government or bribery in excess of One Million Pesos, it fell within the RTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction under the amended Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan law and thus should have been filed in a judicial region outside the National Capital Judicial Region where petitioners held office.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy reserved for instances of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and surveyed precedents recognizing limited exceptions to the general rule that orders denying motions to quash are not immediately appealable, citing Galzote v. Briones, Maximo v. Villapando, Jr., and related authorities. The Court rejected the respondent judge’s reliance on Section 15(a), Rule 110 as the “default regime” because a statute that specifies venue controls over a general rule of venue. The Court reasoned that the proviso in R.A. No. 10660 is a substantive directive on venue and is not rendered inoperative by the qualification “subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.” The Court invoked legislative history evidencing intent to avoid local influence by trying cases outside the jurisdiction where the official holds office. The Court further held that procedural rules cannot nullify

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms