G.R. No. 202639 November 9, 2016
FEDERATED LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. MA. CRISTINA L. DEL ROSARIO, CELSO E. ESCOBIDO II, SHIELA M. ESCOBIDO, and RESTY P. CAPILI, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federated LPG Dealers Association sought police assistance to investigate ACCS Ideal Gas Corporation for alleged violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, including illegal refilling of branded LPG cylinders and underfilling. After surveillance and a test-buy operation on July 15, 2006, where branded cylinders were refilled and found underfilled at ACCS’s plant, applications for search warrants were filed. A search on August 3, 2006, led to the seizure of equipment and LPG cylinders. Complaints were subsequently filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against ACCS officers, including respondents.
The DOJ Prosecutor dismissed the complaints, finding no probable cause. The dismissal was based on the determination that the test-buy operation and seized items did not conclusively prove respondents’ personal participation or knowledge of the alleged illegal acts, and that ACCS, as a corporation, should be the party charged. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for being the wrong remedy, as the proper recourse from a DOJ resolution is a petition for review under Rule 43.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy to challenge the DOJ’s resolution finding no probable cause.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the DOJ Secretary’s resolution dismissing a criminal complaint for lack of probable cause. The established doctrine, as reiterated in People v. Castillo, is that such a resolution is a final order that terminates the proceedings before the prosecutor. The aggrieved party’s correct course of action is to file a petition for review under Rule 43 directly with the Court of Appeals. A special civil action for certiorari is only available if there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the DOJ’s evaluation of the evidence and finding of no probable cause constituted such grave abuse. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts will not interfere absent a clear case of arbitrariness. Since petitioner availed of the wrong remedy, the CA’s dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to procedural rules, which are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.