CASE DIGEST : hon Kenneth M. Porto, Chennie Ann Rose R. Elca, and Jomar Jonhedel B. Bruto (represented by Marife B. Bruto) v. Grant Institute of Trade & Technology, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 257446, October 12, 2022 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Petitioners, together with other complainants, filed criminal complaints for Estafa and Falsification against Grant Institute of Trade & Technology, Inc. (GITT) and its Board of Directors before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of San Pablo City. They alleged that GITT offered and conducted a Cruise Ship Management Course despite lacking the required authority from the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Believing that they were deceived into enrolling and paying tuition for an unauthorized course, the OCP found probable cause and recommended the filing of Estafa charges, although it dismissed the charge for falsification. Upon petition for review, however, the Office of the Regional Prosecutor (ORP) reversed the OCP and dismissed the complaints for lack of probable cause.

Petitioners filed separate Petitions for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the ORP's Resolution. The CA dismissed the petitions outright because of several procedural defects, including the failure to state the petitioners' complete addresses, failure to furnish the public respondent with copies of the petitions, and non-compliance with other requirements under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. In denying reconsideration, the CA additionally ruled that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies because they should have first appealed to the Secretary of Justice. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous and that, under the amended rules of the National Prosecution Service (NPS), the ORP's resolution was already final and appeal to the Secretary of Justice was no longer available.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitions for Certiorari based on the petitioners' procedural violations under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, particularly the failure to indicate their complete addresses and to furnish the public respondent with copies of the petitions.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the ORP's Resolution to the Secretary of Justice, considering the amendments introduced by Department of Justice Department Circular No. 70-A, which delegated to Regional Prosecutors the authority to finally resolve certain petitions for review under the National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal.

HELD

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petitions because of the petitioners' multiple procedural defects. The Court emphasized that compliance with Rule 46 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. Petitioners failed to indicate their actual addresses, a jurisdictional requirement that enables proper service of court processes, and likewise failed to furnish the public respondent with copies of their petitions. While procedural rules may be relaxed in exceptional cases to serve substantial justice, the Court found no compelling reason to excuse petitioners' repeated non-compliance. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petitions on procedural grounds was proper.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the CA's ruling that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. It held that under DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, which amended the National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal, certain resolutions of the Office of the Regional Prosecutor are already final and no longer appealable to the Secretary of Justice. Consequently, petitioners were not required to seek further administrative review before resorting to judicial remedies. Nonetheless, since the petitions were correctly dismissed due to their fatal procedural deficiencies under the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, clarifying the proper application of the amended DOJ rules while sustaining the dismissal on procedural grounds.