GR 168111; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168111 ; July 4, 2008
ANTONIO TAN, DANILO DOMINGO and ROBERT LIM, petitioners, vs. AMELITO BALLENA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingo, and Robert Lim were officers of Footjoy Industrial Corporation, which ceased operations in February 2001. Respondents, a group of former employees, filed a complaint before the Bulacan Provincial Prosecutor alleging that the corporation and its officers failed to report them for compulsory SSS membership and to remit their SSS contributions and loan payments deducted from their wages. They alleged violations of the Social Security Act (Republic Act No. 1161, as amended) and, through deceit, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa).
The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause and ordered the filing of two Informations for Estafa. Petitioners appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which reversed the finding and directed the withdrawal of the Informations. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the DOJ resolutions and reinstated the Provincial Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and reinstating the Provincial Prosecutor’s resolution finding probable cause to charge petitioners with Estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that a determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation is an executive function, generally not subject to judicial review. However, the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is available to correct a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial agency, such as the DOJ.
The Court found that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. Its reversal was based on an erroneous application of the law, specifically the element of deceit in Estafa. The DOJ held that non-remittance of deductions, by itself, does not constitute Estafa, requiring a separate act of misappropriation. This interpretation was incorrect. The law explicitly states that failure to remit employee contributions deducted from wages constitutes prima facie evidence of misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The DOJ disregarded this statutory presumption. By misapplying the law to the established facts—that deductions were made but not remitted—the DOJ acted capriciously. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly exercised its certiorari jurisdiction to annul the DOJ’s void resolutions and reinstate the prosecutor’s finding, which was based on a correct interpretation of the legal presumption of misappropriation arising from non-remittance.