ROMASANTA, GALILEE J.

Civil Procedure Case Digest

2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

Quesada vs. Department of Justice

500 SCRA 454, G.R. No. 150325, Aug 31, 2006

PARTIES:
Petitioner: EDGARDO V. QUESADA,
Respondents: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
and CLEMENTE TERUEL

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the SC. Certiorari.

FACTS:
March 1, 2000 - Teruel, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor
(Mandaluyong), charging Edgardo V. Quesada, Ramon P. Camacho, Jr., and Rodolfo Corgado
with estafa, alleging that on June 13, 1998 at Shangri-La Plaza Hotel, EDSA, Quesada,
Camacho, and Corgado represented themselves as the president, vice president/treasurer, and
managing director, of VSH Group Corporation and offered telecommunication device providing
easy access to internet via television, assuring that after Teruel pays P65,000.00, they will
immediately deliver to him two units. Teruel paid but the units were not delivered.
Quesada filed a counter-affidavit alleging that he, Camacho, and Corgado are Star Consultant
Trainers of F.O.M. Philippines, Inc., a corporation engaged in telecommunication products and
technologies. Quesada further alleged that they formed VSH Group for pooling the commissions
they will receive as Trainers and then dividing the same among themselves. He also alleged that
failure to deliver the units was not due to fraudulent representations since they merely acted as
agents but due to F.O.M. Phils., that ran short of supplies.
April 25, 2000 - Assistant City Prosecutor issued a Resolution finding probable cause against
Quesada, Camacho, and Corgado. Information for estafa was filed with RTC, Mandaluyong.
In the meantime, Quesada filed with DOJ a Petition for Review challenging the April 25, 2000
Resolution of the Prosecutor.
On January 17, 2001 - the Secretary of Justice dismissed the petition and denied Quesadas
motion for reconsideration.
While RTC was hearing Criminal Case, Quesada filed with SC an instant Petition for Certiorari
alleging that Secretary of Justice, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his Petition for Review, contending that element of fraud in
estafa is not present and there is no evidence that promise to deliver was made in bad faith.
The SolGen maintains that Secretary of Justice did not act with grave abuse of discretion and
prayed for dismissal of the petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the filing of present petition directly with the SC is proper.
2. Whether or not Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

1. NEGATIVE. The filing of the petition directly with the SC is NOT proper. A direct recourse to the
Supreme Court is warranted only where there are special and compelling reasons specifically
alleged in the petition to justify such action. Such ladder of appeals is in accordance with the rule
on hierarchy of courts. This should be the constant policy that must be observed strictly by the
courts and lawyers. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, must be filed with the Court of Appeals whose decision may then be appealed to
this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the same Rules.

2. NEGATIVE. The Secretary of Justice did not gravely abuse his discretion. An act of a court or
tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was

Page 1 of 2
 ROMASANTA, GALILEE J.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of

jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility. Quesadas representation and assurance to Teruel that
the units would be delivered to him upon payment was the compelling reason why he parted with
his money. Such assurance, the Investigating Prosecutor added, is actually a misrepresentation
or deceit.

(For reference)
Rule 65. Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)

Rule 45. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth. (1a, 2a)

Page 2 of 2