GR 210475; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210475 APRIL 11, 2018
RAMON K. ILUSORIO, ET AL., Petitioners vs SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Sylvia K. Ilusorio filed a complaint for libel against petitioners and others, stemming from the allegedly libelous book “On the Edge of Heaven,” authored by petitioner Erlinda K. Ilusorio and circulated by officers of certain foundations. An Information was filed, and the case was raffled to the Manila RTC. Petitioners filed a Motion for Determination of Probable Cause, arguing that the Department of Justice (DOJ) Investigating Panel had initially dismissed the charge and that the DOJ Secretary’s initial resolution found no probable cause. The RTC, Branch 6, denied the motion, finding probable cause for arrest based on its review of the Information, DOJ resolutions, and excerpts from the book.
After the presiding judge inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 52. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, including the failure to allege Sylvia’s residence or the place of printing/first publication of the book. The RTC, Branch 52, denied the motion to quash, ruling that the issues raised had already been passed upon in the prior order denying the motion for determination of probable cause.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the RTC’s denial of the motion to quash the Information for libel.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash. The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order—it does not terminate the proceedings. The established remedy against such an interlocutory order is not an immediate special civil action for certiorari, but to proceed to trial and, in the event of an adverse judgment, to raise the issue on appeal.
The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, petitioners had an adequate remedy by going to trial and appealing a final adverse judgment. They could not short-circuit the process by filing a certiorari petition. Furthermore, the Court found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. The RTC had already determined the existence of probable cause in a prior order, and the grounds raised in the motion to quash were matters of defense best ventilated in a full trial on the merits. The petition was therefore denied for being an improper remedy.