G.R. No. L-30485 - MAY 1984 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-30485May 31, 1984Benjamin H. Aquino vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, et al. G.R. No. L-35465May 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al. G.R. No. L-39999May 31, 1984Roy Padilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63451May 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Espiritu G.R. No. L-54919May 30, 1984Polly Cayetano vs. Tomas T. Leonidas, et al. G.R. No. L-51291May 29, 1984Francisco Cuizon, et al. vs. Jose R. Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-51578May 29, 1984New Frontier Mines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-54553May 29, 1984Ronquillo Perater, et al. vs. Eulalio Rosete, et al. G.R. No. L-56483May 29, 1984Sostenes Campillo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-30771May 28, 1984Liam Law vs. Olympic Sawmill Co, et al. G.R. No. L-34241May 28, 1984Ricardo P. Presbitero vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-37945May 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Adriano Cañete, et al. G.R. No. L-53915May 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Dante Moreno G.R. No. L-58172May 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Rolando N. Gardon G.R. No. L-61487May 28, 1984Khosrow Minuchehr vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-65377May 28, 1984Molave Motor Sales, Inc. vs. Crispin C. Laron, et al. G.R. No. L-66327May 28, 1984Jose Cruz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-40436May 25, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Talaro G.R. No. L-62871May 25, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Felicito Tawat, et al. G.R. No. L-27342May 24, 1984Co Bun Chun vs. Overseas Bank of Manila G.R. No. L-57617May 24, 1984Fortune Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals A.C. No. 1432May 21, 1984George Martin vs. Atty. Juan Moreno G.R. No. L-38736May 21, 1984Felipe G. Tac-An vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-44810May 21, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Armando P. Seda G.R. No. L-47118May 21, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Juan Laganzon G.R. No. L-62270May 21, 1984Crispin Malabanan vs. Hon. Anastacio D. Ramento G.R. No. L-64112May 21, 1984National Housing Authority vs. Otilio Abaya G.R. No. L-27636May 19, 1984Pedro A. Bernas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-56385May 19, 1984Renato U. Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-59760May 19, 1984Benigno C. Gascon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-60544May 19, 1984Arsenio Florendo, Jr., et al. vs. Perpetua D. Coloma, et al. G.R. No. L-31653May 18, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Renato P. Ortilla G.R. No. L-32865May 18, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Benaraba, et al. G.R. No. L-38141May 15, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Frankisio Aro G.R. No. L-50350May 15, 1984Rosa Maria Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-51513May 15, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Gorospe, et al. G.R. No. L-45862-64May 11, 1984Wenceslao Gregorio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45870May 11, 1984Margaret Maxey, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-51549-51May 11, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Ervas G.R. No. L-59762May 11, 1984Filomeno Catorce vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-39557May 3, 1984Romulo A. Sales vs. Ismael Mathay Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-60471May 2, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Tayapad G.R. No. L-63796-97May 2, 1984La Chemise Lacoste, S. A. vs. Hon. Oscar C. Fernandez The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Benjamin H. Aquino vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al.Roy Padilla, et al. vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Ernesto EspirituPolly Cayetano vs. Tomas T. Leonidas, et al.Francisco Cuizon, et al. vs. Jose R. Ramolete, et al.New Frontier Mines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRonquillo Perater, et al. vs. Eulalio Rosete, et al.Sostenes Campillo vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Liam Law vs. Olympic Sawmill Co, et al.Ricardo P. Presbitero vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Adriano Cañete, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Dante MorenoPeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando N. GardonKhosrow Minuchehr vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Molave Motor Sales, Inc. vs. Crispin C. Laron, et al.Jose Cruz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Arturo TalaroPeople of the Philippines vs. Felicito Tawat, et al.Co Bun Chun vs. Overseas Bank of ManilaFortune Homes, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsGeorge Martin vs. Atty. Juan MorenoFelipe G. Tac-An vs. Court of Appeals, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Armando P. SedaPeople of the Philippines vs. Juan LaganzonCrispin Malabanan vs. Hon. Anastacio D. RamentoNational Housing Authority vs. Otilio AbayaPedro A. Bernas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Renato U. Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, et al.Benigno C. Gascon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Arsenio Florendo, Jr., et al. vs. Perpetua D. Coloma, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Renato P. OrtillaPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio Benaraba, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Frankisio AroRosa Maria Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Gorospe, et al.Wenceslao Gregorio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Margaret Maxey, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio ErvasFilomeno Catorce vs. Court of AppealsRomulo A. Sales vs. Ismael Mathay Sr., et al.People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo TayapadLa Chemise Lacoste, S. A. vs. Hon. Oscar C. FernandezThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-30485 May 31, 1984

BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Provincial Fiscal of Rizal,petitioner,
vs.
HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch X), and LUCIO ADRIANO, JR.,respondents.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

RELOVA,J.:

On October 9, 1968, then Rizal Provincial Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino filed an information in the then Court of First Instance at Pasig, Rizal, docketed as Criminal Case No. 18425 and entitled:The People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Ceñidoza, Jose R. Baricua, Cesario B. Ong, Lucio Adriano, Jr. and Adriano Castillo,for estafa thru falsification of official and/or public documents. Said criminal case, which arose from the huge expansion in the area after a resurvey and subdivision of a certain parcel of registered land in Muntinlupa, Rizal, and the approval by certain officials of the Land Registration Commission of the corresponding plans and technical descriptions prepared by the surveyor who resurveyed and subdivided the property, was assigned to the branch of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal presided by Hon. Pedro Revilla.

On October 27, 1968, Lucio Adriano, Jr., one of the defendants in said Criminal Case No. 18425, instituted a petition for mandamus in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal praying for an order directing Fiscal Aquino to include as defendants in the information filed by him in Criminal Case No. 18425 (not 18245) — all persons of whom he found aprima faciecase as stated by him in Annex "B " of his Petition, particularly, Commissioner Antonio Noblejas of the Land Registration Commission, who, in the meantime, resigned from the office. The mandamus case, docketed as Civil Case No. 11307, was assigned to Branch X, presided by herein respondent Judge Herminio C. Mariano, who, thereafter, rendered a decision, dated March 28, 1969, granting the petition for mandamus, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Hence, this petition for review by certiorari praying that the decision of respondent Court of First Instance be set aside and declaring that herein petitioner cannot be compelled to include former Commissioner Antonio Noblejas as one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 18425.

There is merit in the petition.

As stated in the decision sought to be reviewed, herein petitioner conducted the corresponding preliminary investigation in the case assigned to him and, in a second indorsement to the then Secretary of Justice, dated June 20, 1968, he had expressed the view that a strongprima faciecase exists against Commissioner Noblejas and, therefore, recommended strongly that he be allowed to file the corresponding information against said commissioner and all other persons whom he found in his investigation to be criminally liable for the offense complained of. However, Fiscal Aquino, after a period of more than two months from the tune he made his second indorsement, addressed a memorandum, dated September 2, 1968, to the then Secretary of Justice stating, among others, that in view of the offer of Commissioner Noblejas to resign from office and in the fight of the Commissioner's explanation, he (herein petitioner) found the responsibility of said commissioner, if any, to be only administrative in nature. Thus, the information was filed without including Commissioner Noblejas as one of the accused.

In the light of the foregoing facts, is the proper remedy of private respondent Adriano, Jr., an action for mandamus, or a simple motion in Criminal Case No. 18425 with prayer for an order directing Fiscal Aquino to include in the information Commissioner Antonio Noblejas as one of the defendants therein?

The Revised Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 65) on Petition for mandamus provides that "[w]hen any tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner, by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant." Stated differently, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that can be resorted to only in cases of extreme necessity where the ordinary forms of procedure are powerless to afford relief where there is no other clear, adequate and speedy remedy. Before a writ of mandamus may be issued, it is obligatory upon the petitioner to exhaust all remedies in the ordinary course of law. He must show that the duty sought to be performed must be one which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. (Quintero vs. Martinez, 84 Phil. 496; Perez vs. City Mayor of Cabanatuan, 3 SCRA 431; Alzate vs. Aldana, 8 SCRA 219; and, Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 23 SCRA 492).

Thus, if appeal or some other equally adequate remedy is still available in the ordinary course of law, the action for mandamus would be improper. In the case at bar, private respondent Adriano, Jr. did not request Fiscal Aquino to include in the information Commissioner Noblejas as one of the accused. Had he done so and the same was met with a denial Adriano, Jr. could have appealed to the Secretary of Justice who may reverse petitioner and designate another to act for the purpose. That way, the filing of a simple motion with the Fiscal to include or to amend the information is much more speedy and adequate than a petition for mandamus. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General in his brief for the petitioner:

Otherwise stated, before filing the present action for mandamus in the court below, private respondent Adriano, Jr. should have availed of this administrative remedy and his failure to do so is fatal. To place his case beyond the pale of this rule, it must be shown that his case falls — which it did not — within the cases where, in accordance with this Court's decisions, the aggrieved party need not exhaust administrative remedies within his reach in the ordinary course of the law (Tapales vs. the President and the Board of Regents of the U.P., G.R. No. L-17523, March 30, 1963; Mangubat vs. Osmena, G.R. No. L-12837, April 30, 1959; Baguio vs. Honorable Jose Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-11078, May 27, 1959; Pascual vs. Provincial Board, G.R. No. L-11959, October 31, 1959; Marinduque Iron Mines, etc. vs. Secretary of Public Works, G.R. No. L-15982, May 31, 1963; Alzate vs. Aldaba, G.R. L-14407, February 29, 1960 and Demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-13000, September 25, 1959).

Neither is there merit in the argument that if a motion is presented before the trial judge he would be prejudging the case if he should grant the same because such a resolution win be presented only on aprima facieevidence, while a judgment of conviction must be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE,the petition isGRANTEDand the decision dated March 28, 1969, of respondent judge isSET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.