The Supreme Court, in Balindong v. Court of Appeals, firmly reiterated the principle that administrative rules, particularly those governing appeals within the Department of Justice (DOJ), must be strictly followed to ensure fairness and efficiency. The Court held that the Secretary of Justice cannot entertain successive motions for reconsideration beyond what the rules allow, emphasizing that adherence to procedural rules is crucial for the orderly administration of justice. This decision underscores the importance of finality in administrative proceedings, preventing endless delays and ensuring that justice is not unduly prolonged.

Can the Secretary of Justice Bend the Rules? A Case of Homicide, Frustrated Murder, and a Third Try

The case arose from a shooting incident during the 1998 elections in Lanao del Sur, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. Following a preliminary investigation, several individuals, including Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, were charged with Double Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder. Over time, the charges were modified, dismissed, and reinstated following multiple motions for reconsideration filed by the parties involved. The central legal question was whether the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion by entertaining a third motion for reconsideration, despite a clear DOJ circular prohibiting such successive filings. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Secretary of Justice had indeed overstepped his authority, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established procedural rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation and application of Section 13 of DOJ Circular No. 70, which explicitly prohibits second or further motions for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that this provision is mandatory and that the Secretary of Justice is bound to follow it. As the Court of Appeals aptly stated:

Certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. There is excess of jurisdiction where the court has jurisdiction but has transcended the same or acted without any statutory authority. The remedy of certiorari reviews jurisdictional questions having to do with an indifferent disregard of the law. This is what public respondent is guilty of in the case at bar – totally disregarding the clear provision of Section 13, DOJ Circular No. 70 which states:

SECTION 13. Motion for Reconsideration. – The aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

The petitioners argued that the Secretary of Justice has the power to relax procedural rules in the interest of justice, citing instances where the Supreme Court itself had entertained second or third motions for reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court distinguished its own unique role as the final arbiter of legal questions from that of the Secretary of Justice, whose decisions are subject to appeal to the Office of the President. The Court noted that its decisions constitute the law of the case, whereas administrative resolutions have avenues for further review.

Building on this principle, the Court underscored the importance of finality in administrative proceedings. Allowing endless rounds of motions for reconsideration would undermine the efficiency and integrity of the justice system, leading to unwarranted delays and potential abuse. This approach contrasts with the need for a clear and predictable legal process, where rules are consistently applied to all parties. This ensures that justice is dispensed fairly and without undue delay.

The petitioners also contended that the private respondent had effectively consented to the amended information for double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide by failing to seek reconsideration of the order from the RTC of Cagayan de Oro. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, pointing out that jurisdiction over the case had already been transferred to the RTC of Quezon City at the time the amended information was admitted. Therefore, the RTC of Cagayan de Oro lacked the authority to take cognizance of the matter. The physical location of the case records is not the sole factor in determining jurisdiction, especially when a court has already definitively transferred the venue.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioners’ assertion that the Secretary of Justice could “impliedly suspend” the DOJ’s rules of procedure at any time. Litigation must adhere to prescribed procedures to ensure issues are properly presented and justly resolved. Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed unless persuasive reasons justify relaxation to relieve a litigant of injustice disproportionate to their non-compliance. Procedural law is crucial for the orderly administration of justice. It ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights by preventing arbitrariness and whimsy in dispute resolution. Giving effect to both procedural and substantive laws is essential for just and speedy resolutions.

The Supreme Court also reiterated its admonition in Crespo v. Mogul, emphasizing that the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeal once a complaint or information has been filed in court. The matter should be left entirely to the determination of the Court. This helps to avoid situations where the Secretary of Justice’s opinion might be disregarded by the trial court, maintaining a clear separation of powers and preventing potential conflicts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion by entertaining a third motion for reconsideration, violating the DOJ’s own procedural rules. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that such action was indeed a grave abuse of discretion.
What is DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 13?	DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 13, is a rule that prohibits the filing of second or further motions for reconsideration in appeals within the Department of Justice. It aims to ensure finality and prevent undue delays in administrative proceedings.
Can the Secretary of Justice suspend or ignore the DOJ’s rules of procedure?	No, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Justice cannot simply suspend or ignore the DOJ’s rules of procedure. These rules must be followed to ensure fairness, predictability, and the orderly administration of justice.
What did the Court say about multiple motions for reconsideration?	The Court views the “piece-meal” imputation of a judgment by successive motions for reconsideration as anathema. It can undermine the efficiency and integrity of the justice system.
Why was the transfer of venue significant in this case?	The transfer of venue from Cagayan de Oro to Quezon City was significant because it determined which court had jurisdiction over the case. Once the Supreme Court ordered the transfer, the RTC of Cagayan de Oro was divested of its authority to hear any further pleadings related to the case.
What is the significance of Crespo v. Mogul in this case?	The Court reiterated its admonition in Crespo v. Mogul, stating that the Secretary of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review once a case has been filed in court. This ensures that the matter is left entirely to the court’s determination.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which annulled the DOJ Resolution dated 12 March 2001 and reinstated the earlier DOJ Resolutions issued on 04 August 1999, 01 December 1999, and 16 March 2000. The TRO was lifted, and the RTC of Quezon City was ordered to implement its Resolution dated 03 December 2003 regarding the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused.
What are the practical implications of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in administrative proceedings, ensuring that justice is not unduly delayed by endless rounds of motions for reconsideration. It maintains fairness and efficiency in the legal process.

In conclusion, Balindong v. Court of Appeals serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to established procedural rules within the administrative justice system. The decision reinforces that the Secretary of Justice must abide by the DOJ’s own regulations, particularly those prohibiting multiple motions for reconsideration. This ensures fairness, efficiency, and finality in administrative proceedings, preventing undue delays and potential abuse of the system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Balindong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159962, December 16, 2004