Certiorari Denied: Exhausting Appeals Before Seeking Extraordinary Writs in Tax Disputes

The Supreme Court's decision in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 189590, April 23, 2018) serves as an important reminder about the proper modes of review in Philippine remedial law. While the case involved a forfeiture proceeding under Republic Act No. 1379, its procedural ruling carries broader significance: a party who avails of the wrong remedy—such as filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 when an appeal under Rule 45 is available—risks dismissal, even if the Court may sometimes relax the rules in the interest of justice.

The Case: Forfeiture of Alleged Ill-Gotten Wealth

The Republic, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a forfeiture petition before the Sandiganbayan against Romeo Panganiban, a former Regional Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways, and his family members. The government sought to forfeit five real properties valued at over P40 million, alleging these were unlawfully acquired during Panganiban's government service.

The government's evidence showed that Panganiban's net worth ballooned from P455,000 in 1986 to over P13 million by 2001, while his total government salary for that period was only about P2.5 million. The Sandiganbayan partly granted the respondents' demurrer to evidence, dismissing the petition as to some properties while requiring the respondents to explain their acquisition of others.

The Procedural Issue: Wrong Mode of Review

The Republic filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, pointed out a fundamental procedural flaw: forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 are civil in nature, and the proper remedy to question the Sandiganbayan's resolutions was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

The Court explained that an order granting a demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a party desiring to appeal from a judgment or final resolution of the Sandiganbayan may file a verified petition for review on certiorari, raising only questions of law.

When Certiorari May Be Allowed

Despite the procedural lapse, the Court chose to take cognizance of the case. It emphasized that rules of procedure are subservient to substantive rights, and courts should favor resolving disputes on their merits rather than on technicalities. The Court noted that certiorari may be allowed despite the existence of an appeal when the case involves immense public interest, public policy, or deep historical repercussions.

This leniency, however, should not be mistaken as a license to disregard procedural rules. The Court's willingness to relax the rules was an exception, not the general rule.

The Substantive Ruling

On the merits, the Court partly granted the petition. It found that the Sandiganbayan erred in considering documents that were not formally offered in evidence. Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, courts shall consider no evidence that has not been formally offered. The Sandiganbayan had relied on a certificate of title and deed of sale that the respondents had not yet formally offered, since they had not even begun presenting their evidence.

The Court also addressed the government's argument that even if a respondent is not the registered owner, a property may still be forfeited if preponderance of evidence shows it is ill-gotten and the respondent is the beneficial owner.

Practical Takeaways

• Choose the correct remedy. For judgments or final orders of the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals, or Court of Tax Appeals, the proper mode of review is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Rule 65 is not a substitute for appeal. Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion.
• Formally offer all evidence. Courts will not consider evidence that has not been formally offered, regardless of its relevance or probative value.
• A demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits. An order granting a demurrer to evidence disposes of the case and is appealable through the ordinary appellate process.
• Procedural leniency is exceptional. While courts may relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, litigants should not presume such leniency will be extended.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.