Acharon vs. Purisima, et al.

The denial of a motion to quash in a criminal case is an interlocutory order that cannot be assailed by petition for certiorari; the remedy is to go to trial and, if convicted, to raise the jurisdictional or procedural objections on appeal from the final judgment.

Pedro Acharon was charged with four violations of Commonwealth Act No. 303 (the Minimum Wage Law) before the Municipal Court of General Santos, Cotabato. The cases were set for preliminary investigation. Before the scheduled date, Acharon moved to quash the informations on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the administrative remedies prescribed under the Minimum Wage Law and a certification from the Secretary of Labor—both prerequisites to a criminal action—had not been exhausted or obtained. The municipal court denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Instead of proceeding to trial, Acharon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, seeking to nullify the municipal court’s orders for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

• Nature: Pedro Acharon was the accused in four criminal cases for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 303 pending before the Municipal Court of General Santos, Cotabato. The cases were at the preliminary investigation stage.
• Motion to Quash: Prior to the scheduled hearing, Acharon filed a motion to quash the informations on two jurisdictional grounds: (1) the administrative remedies provided in the rules and regulations under the Minimum Wage Law had not been exhausted, and (2) the certification of the Secretary of Labor required as a prerequisite for a criminal action under Commonwealth Act No. 303 had not been obtained. The municipal court denied the motion and later denied a motion for reconsideration.
• Certiorari in the Court of First Instance: Instead of submitting to trial, Acharon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, alleging that the municipal court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was given due course, respondents filed an answer justifying the municipal court’s actions, and the case was set for hearing.
• Dismissal by the CFI: After the hearing, the Court of First Instance dismissed the petition because Acharon had failed to attach the informations and the order denying the motion to quash. The court stated that without these documents, it could not gather the facts constituting the alleged lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and thus was not in a position to render a judgment.
• Appeal and Injunctive Relief: Acharon appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court and sought a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the municipal court from proceeding with the criminal cases pending resolution of the appeal.

• Curable Formal Defect: Petitioner maintained that the Court of First Instance gravely erred in dismissing the certiorari petition solely for failure to annex the informations and the order denying the motion to quash, because those documents were part of the trial court record and the defect could have been remedied by a simple order to produce them.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion as Basis for Certiorari: Petitioner argued that the municipal court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash despite the absence of the administrative prerequisites mandated by Commonwealth Act No. 303 and its implementing regulations, thus warranting the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
• Entitlement to Injunctive Relief: Petitioner contended that a preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent the municipal court from proceeding with the preliminary investigation and trial while his appeal was pending, to avoid rendering the certiorari proceedings moot.

• Proper Dismissal for Failure to State Cause: Respondents countered that the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition because, without the challenged order and the informations, it was impossible to determine whether the municipal court lacked jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion; the petition therefore failed to state a sufficient cause for relief.
• Certiorari Not the Proper Remedy: Respondents argued that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order that should be challenged by proceeding to trial and raising the defenses on appeal from a final judgment, not by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

• Availability of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari lies to challenge the denial of a motion to quash in a criminal case, or whether the proper remedy is to proceed to trial and appeal from the judgment on the merits.
• Propriety of the Dismissal: Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the certiorari petition for failure to attach the informations and the order denying the motion to quash.
• Preliminary Injunction: Whether a writ of preliminary injunction should issue to restrain the municipal court from proceeding with the criminal cases during the pendency of the appeal.

• Availability of Certiorari: Certiorari was not available to challenge the denial of the motion to quash. An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory; the appropriate remedy is to go to trial, reiterate the special defenses raised in the motion, and, if an adverse judgment is rendered after trial on the merits, to appeal in the manner authorized by law. The recourse of filing a certiorari petition before the Court of First Instance was unwarranted as it was contrary to the usual course of law.
• Propriety of the Dismissal: The dismissal did not constitute reversible error. The petitioner’s failure to plead the complaint and the order in question left the court unable to gather the facts constituting the alleged lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. However, the proper step to cure that technical defect was not to appeal the dismissal, but to file a motion for reconsideration in the same court, furnishing it with the two vital pleadings for an intelligent determination of the case. By appealing directly instead of seeking reconsideration, the petitioner pursued an incorrect remedy.
• Preliminary Injunction: The petition for preliminary injunction was denied as a corollary of the dismissal of the appeal. No useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings when the appeal itself lacked merit.

• Doctrine on the Proper Remedy from Denial of a Motion to Quash — The denial of a motion to quash in a criminal case is an interlocutory order that cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. The accused must proceed to trial, reiterate the special defenses invoked in the motion, and if convicted, appeal the final judgment to raise those defenses. Certiorari is not a substitute for the remedy of appeal; it is available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by holding that Acharon’s petition for certiorari was premature and improper, and that his remedy lay in a full trial and subsequent appeal.

• "When the motion to quash filed by Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law." — This passage articulates the controlling rule that interlocutory orders in criminal cases, such as the denial of a motion to quash, must be challenged through the ordinary course of trial and appeal, not by resort to extraordinary remedies.

• "The step Acharon should have taken to obviate the technical defect observed by the court a quo on which it predicate its order of dismissal was not to appeal but to file a motion for reconsideration furnishing the court with the two pleadings which it considered vital for an intelligent determination of the case." — This emphasizes the procedural principle that a party who fails to attach essential documents to a pleading should seek reconsideration rather than appeal, preserving the opportunity to cure the defect before the same court.

• N/A — The decision refers to “law and precedents” but does not cite any specific case by name.

• Commonwealth Act No. 303 (Minimum Wage Law) — The substantive law under which the criminal charges were filed. The petitioner invoked its administrative prerequisites (exhaustion of administrative remedies and certification by the Secretary of Labor) as grounds for the motion to quash.
• Rules of Court provisions on certiorari, motion to quash, and appeal — Although not cited by specific number, the decision implicitly applies the rules that limit certiorari to cases where no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists, and that treat interlocutory orders as not subject to certiorari.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concurred.

• N/A — No dissenting opinions were recorded.