ERMELINE J. TAMPUS – 2.

5JD

ALFREDO J. NON, GLORIA VICTORIA C. YAP-TARUC, JOSEFINA PATRICIA A. MAGPALEASIRIT and

GERONIMO D. STA. ANA, Petitioner,
vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ALYANSA PARA SA BAGONG PILIPINAS, INC., and HON. MARIA
GRACIA A. CADIZ-CASACLANG, Respondents.
G.R. No. 251177, September 08, 2020

REYES, J. JR., J.:

FACTS:
The case originated from Energy Regulatory Commission's issuance of Resolution No. 1, Series of
2016 which moved the effectivity date of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015 from November 2015 to
April 2016. The Resolution No. 13-2015 directed all distribution utilities (DUs) to conduct a
competitive selection process (CSP) in securing their power supply agreements (PSAs).

Believing that Resolution No. 1-2016 was a ploy to accommodate or favor the MERALCO and its
sister companies, and enable them to bag lucrative PSAs without complying with the CSP
requirement, the Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas (ABP) filed before the Court on November 3, 2016
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the validity of Resolution No. 1-2016, as well as the
CSP Guidelines.

On November 23, 2016, the ABP also filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a verified complaint
against herein petitioners, together with Jose Vicente B. Salazar for:
(a) violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(b) violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees;
(c) violation of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001;
(d) grave abuse of authority;
(e) grave misconduct;
(f) oppression; and
(g) gross neglect of duty.

Meanwhile on September 29, 201 7, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution in OMB-C-C-16-0497,

finding probable cause to charge petitioners and Salazar for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019. From this, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court, docketed as G.R. No.
239168, while Salazar filed a separate petition, docketed as G.R. No. 240288. During the pendency of
both G.R. Nos. 239168 and 240288, the Ombudsman filed a Criminal Information before the RTC of
Pasig City against petitioners and Salazar for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

On July 12, 2018, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash dated July 11, 2018 on the ground that the RTC
Pasig City has no jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Section 2, paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 10660
which took effect in 2015.

On September 10, 2018, the RTC Pasig City issued the herein assailed Order denying petitioners'
Motion to Quash.

In the meantime, the Court, on May 3, 2019, rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 227670 holding that
the assailed issuances of the ERC were void ab initio.
On September 20, 2019, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Petition and the
attached Supplemental Petition in G.R. No. 239168, arguing that respondent judge committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their Motion to Quash.

ISSUE:
The public respondent gravely erred in denying the motion to quash information because, by
express provisions of R.A. 10660, she has no jurisdiction over the criminal case as it must be tried by
a Regional Trial Court in a Judicial Region other than in the National Capital Region.

RULING:
The Court granted the petition.

 Direct recourse to the Court from a denial of a Motion to Quash allowed in meritorious
cases.

As a rule, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused is not appealable, since an appeal from
an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it
be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari, which is filed only in the absence of an appeal or any
other adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. In a denial of a motion to quash information, the plain
and speedy remedy is to proceed to trial.

In meritorious cases, however, we have recognized certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail

interlocutory orders, specifically pertaining to denials of motions to quash. These instances are:

(a) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion;
(b) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not
afford adequate and expeditious relief;
(c) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice;
(d) to promote public welfare and public policy; and
(e) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with
dispatch in the consideration thereof.

Certiorari is the appropriate remedy in grave abuse of discretion cases, if the petitioner can establish
that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The
writ of certiorari serves to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it
from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or to
relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts which courts have no power or authority in law to
perform. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the circumstances warrant the resort to
certiorari.

Here we find that the RTC Pasig City acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners'
motion to quash the Information which warrants the resort to the filing of the instant Petition for
Certiorari.

By definition, the special civil action of certiorari, as provided for under Section 1, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, is an extraordinary remedy that is available only upon showing that a tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.
In the present case, respondent judge refused to grant the Motion to Quash filed by petitioners
despite the clear wording of R.A. No. 10660 that cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC under
Section 4, as amended, shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.

 RTC Pasig City has no jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. R-PSG-18-01280-CR.

A quick look at Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure would reveal that
when a law specifically provides a venue, then the criminal action shall be instituted in such place.
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. -
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.

Here, Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 clearly provides that the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction
when the information either:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One Million Pesos (Pl,000,000.00). Moreover, such
cases falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC shall be tried in a judicial region other than the place
where the accused official holds office.

R.A. No. 10660 took effect in 2015. When the Information against petitioners was filed in 2018,
petitioners were still Commissioners of the ERC, holding office in Ortigas, Pasig City. The Information
also did not allege any amount of damage to the government, or any bribery. Applying Section 2 of
R.A. No. 10660, the Information against petitioners should have been filed in a judicial region outside
of the National Capital Judicial Region. Since jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court.

Contrary to the interpretation of the respondent judge and the Ombudsman, the applicability of R.A.
No. 10660 is not conditioned upon the promulgation of rules by the Court. As we declared in
Government Service Insurance System v. Daymiel:
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law, and rules of
procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of
law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies.

Since the RTC of Pasig City has no jurisdiction over the present case, the dismissal of Criminal Case
No. R-PSG-18-01280-CR is clearly in order. Further, all actions of the RTC of Pasig City in the case are
declared null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction.

As the Court held in Bilag v. Ay-ay, "x x x any act that a court performs without jurisdiction shall be
null and void, and without any binding legal effects."

The dismissal of the case, thus, follows as a necessary consequence. As aptly stated in the case of
Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. v. Pineda, Jr.:
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or
tribunal where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objections to jurisdiction cannot
be waived and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. When a case is filed
with a court which has no jurisdiction over the action, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the case.

Thus, petition is GRANTED.