G.R. No. 173081; December 15, 2010
ERNESTO MARCELO, JR. and LAURO LLAMES, Petitioners, vs. RAFAEL R. VILLORDON, Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for estafa and violation of the Labor Code against their former employer, Eduardo Dee, Sr., for non-payment of wages. After Dee repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled preliminary investigations, the case was declared submitted for resolution. However, Dee later filed a motion to reopen, which was approved. Hearings were reset, but Dee again failed to appear. Petitioners, though present at one hearing, did not submit their required Reply-Affidavit. Subsequently, petitioners filed an administrative complaint against respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon with the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged neglect of duty. They also filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel Villordon to resolve the criminal complaint and to award damages.
The RTC dismissed the mandamus petition. It ruled that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as they should have first elevated the matter to the Chief City Prosecutor. The RTC also found that the case was not truly submitted for resolution, as petitioners themselves had not filed their Reply-Affidavit after the reopening, leaving the preliminary investigation incomplete. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are entitled to the writ of mandamus to compel the assistant city prosecutor to resolve the criminal complaint and file an information.

RULING

No, petitioners are not entitled to mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control discretion. The conduct of a preliminary investigation and the decision to file an information are discretionary functions of the prosecutor, involving the evaluation of evidence and the determination of probable cause. Petitioners failed to show that Villordon had a clear, ministerial duty to act immediately, especially since the proceedings were stalled in part by petitioners’ own inaction in not submitting their Reply-Affidavit.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners had a plain and adequate remedy by seeking supervisory action from the Chief City Prosecutor before resorting to judicial action. Their direct filing of a mandamus petition was premature. The availability of this administrative recourse, coupled with the discretionary nature of the prosecutor’s duty, precludes the grant of the extraordinary writ of mandamus.