G.R. No. 120014 . November 26, 2002.
FRANCISCO Q. AURILLO, JR., petitioner, vs. NOEL RABI, and THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 9, Tacloban City, respondents.

FACTS

On January 10, 1995, respondent Noel Rabi was arrested without a warrant and charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866 (possession of unlicensed firearm) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tacloban City, docketed as I.S. No. 95-043. After an inquest, Public Prosecutor Zenaida Camonical Isidro issued a resolution on January 11, 1995, recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause. Petitioner Francisco Q. Aurillo, Jr., the Regional State Prosecutor of Region VIII, decided to assume jurisdiction and ordered a new preliminary investigation. He issued memoranda on January 12 and 20, 1995, directing the City Prosecutor to elevate the records, citing P.D. No. 1275 and Department Order No. 318. A subpoena was issued for a new preliminary investigation set for February 2, 1995, adding charges for violation of Comelec Resolution No. 2323, B.P. Blg. 9, and Malicious Mischief. On January 27, 1995, upon receiving the subpoena, Rabi filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, arguing that Aurillo acted without jurisdiction. The RTC issued a TRO on January 30, 1995. Despite this, the Assistant Regional State Prosecutor continued the preliminary investigation and, with Aurillo’s approval, filed an Information against Rabi for violation of P.D. No. 1866 on April 4, 1995. On April 12, 1995, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Rabi, nullifying the preliminary investigation and the Information, and ordering Aurillo to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Aurillo filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition filed by Rabi with the RTC was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Whether Aurillo is empowered to motu proprio take over and conduct a preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 95-043 after the inquest investigation had been terminated and approved by the City Prosecutor.
3. Whether the Information filed by Aurillo against Rabi with the RTC for violation of P.D. No. 1866 may be nullified by said court.
4. Whether Aurillo is liable for damages and attorney’s fees to Rabi.

RULING

1. No, the petition was not premature. The general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies admits exceptions, including when the act complained of is patently illegal, when there is an urgent need for judicial intervention, when the disputed act is performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, and when due process is disregarded. In this case, Rabi learned of Aurillo’s takeover only on January 27, 1995, with a preliminary investigation set for February 2, 1995, leaving inadequate time to seek redress from the Secretary of Justice in Manila. Judicial intervention was imperative to prevent a fait accompli to Rabi’s prejudice. Aurillo acted without authority and with grave abuse of discretion; hence, his actions were a nullity.
2. No, Aurillo is not empowered to motu proprio take over and conduct a new preliminary investigation. Under Department Order No. 318, the power of a regional state prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation is confined to specific criminal cases and only when directed by the Secretary of Justice. Aurillo’s reliance on P.D. No. 1275 and the Revised Administrative Code is misplaced. The “administrative supervision” vested in a regional state prosecutor is limited to overseeing operations to ensure effective management and does not include the power to motu proprio review, revise, or modify the resolutions of a city prosecutor or to conduct a new preliminary investigation after a case has been dismissed. The authority to take over a preliminary investigation requires a specific delegation from the Secretary of Justice, which was absent here.
3. Yes, the Information filed by Aurillo may be nullified. Since Aurillo conducted the preliminary investigation without authority, the proceedings were void from the beginning. Consequently, the Information filed based on that unauthorized investigation is also null and void. The RTC correctly nullified both the preliminary investigation and the Information.
4. Yes, Aurillo is liable for damages and attorney’s fees. Aurillo’s act of filing the Information against Rabi despite the pending petition and the TRO issued by the RTC constituted a wanton disregard of the court’s authority and simple demands of courtesy. This preempted the court’s resolution of the issues and justified the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees to Rabi. The awards were proper as Aurillo’s actions were in bad faith and amounted to an abuse of rights.