G.R. No. 161422. December 13, 2007. * FEDERICO “TOTO” NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB), represented by its Chairperson MA. CONSOLIZA T. LAGUARDIA; Spouses THELMA J. CHIONG and DIONISIO F. CHIONG; and MARICHU S. JIMENEA, respondents.

 Appeals; Questions of Fact and Questions of Law; Questions of fact are not proper subjects for the Supreme Court unless there is clear and convincing proof that the judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts, or when it failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion, and when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on record.—Settled is the rule that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Questions of fact are not proper subjects for this Court unless there is clear and convincing proof that the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; or when the CA failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on record.

Thus, the MTRCB erred when it seized and retained the master copy of Butakal for more than 20 days. 

The movie Butakal (Sugapa Sa Laman). The movie is allegedly based on the true story of two sisters, Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong of Cebu. The sisters were kidnapped, raped and killed on July 16, 1997

The eight accused, some scions of prominent Cebu families, have been convicted by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court (RTC), save for one, who turned state witness. 

Natividad, a movie producer and director, for and on behalf of the movie outfit Venus Films, filed with the MTRCB an application for a permit to exhibit Butakal, the movie apparently based on the Chiong rapes.

viewing starting September 8, 1999 in several movie houses in Metro Manila and in Cebu City. 

n September 1, 1999, private respondents, the spouses Dionisio and Thelma Chiong, and Thelma’s sister, Marichu Jimenea (Chiongs), convinced that the movie was a depiction of the sisters’ plight, wrote MTRCB requesting the board to disapprove the showing of the film

special screening was held.

Thereafter, Siguion-Reyna informed the Chiongs that the MTRCB stood by its previous approval of the movie and only a restraining order from the proper court would stop its public exhibition starting September 8, 1999.

September 6, 1999, the Chiongs filed with the RTC a petition for injunction with damages with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) . The Chiongs alleged that the showing of the film would inflict “grave injustice and irreparable injury to the petitioners and the victims in Crim. Cases

RTC: In favor of Chiong

On September 12, 1999, Natividad filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the dismissal of the main petition and the lifting of the TRO. Natividad cited as grounds the alleged failure of the Chiongs to exhaust available administrative remedies, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the petition, and the failure of the petition itself to state a cause of action.

Butakal was previewed by the RTC during the hearing on September 23, 1999.

Because the TRO would expire on September 27, 1999 without the court resolving their urgent application for preliminary injunction, the Chiongs filed a very urgent motion to resolve the pending incident even though they were fully aware that Natividad had not yet concluded his presentation of evidence. The court denied the urgent motion.

In the afternoon of September 27, 1999, Natividad received a letter from the MTRCB informing him that the Office of the President (OP) had directed the MTRCB Chairperson to designate a Committee of Board Members to undertake a second review and to determine if there was a basis for allegations that the film contains scenes that were libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of the Chiong sisters and surviving relatives, and if after review, the Board, in its judgment, shall find basis for the complaint, to impose such penalties/sanctions in accordance with the provisions of PD 1986.

ccordance with the provisions of PD 1986. 5 The Board recalled the Permit to Exhibit and directed Na-tividad to submit a second review. 

Natividad inquired why there was a recall and discovered that on September 10, 1999, Thelma Chiong and her relatives met with the President and requested another review, resulting in the recall of the permit and the directive to the MTRCB to undertake another review. Natividad post-haste filed a supplemental motion to dismiss Civil Case No. Q-99-38647 alleging that when the Chiongs asked the OP to intervene despite the pendency of the court case, they committed forum shopping. Thus, he alleged that Civil Case No. Q-99-38647 should be dismissed.

RTC - dismissed forum shopping

asking the MTRCB to prohibit the exhibition of Butakal or any portion of the film in all forms or venues in the Philippines and abroad. The Chiongs also asked that all copies of the movie be surrendered to the MTRCB and destroyed. 6

Natividad, et al. in their Answer interposed that (1) the MTRCB had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the contro-versy; (2) the complainants committed forum shopping; (3) the earlier decision of the MTRCB granting a permit to exhibit Butakal had become final and executory; and (4) the recall order of the permit violated their right to due process.

After the surrender of the master copy of Butakal , Natividad later requested that the MTRCB release the master copy. The MTRCB refused explaining that the video tape of Butakal had to remain with the MTRCB until and after the administrative case filed by the Chiongs is terminated because the video tape was material evidence in the administrative case. Aggrieved, on May 12, 2000, Natividad filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA.

The petition was denied by the CA in a decision promulgated on December 22, 2003. In denying the petition, the CA found that (1) the orders issued by the MTRCB in Administrative Case No. 25-99 were merely interlocutory and generally may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari; (2) no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTRCB, because it merely deferred proceedings conformably with the sub judice rule; (3) the MTRCB had primary jurisdiction, a fact already affirmed by the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-99-38647; and (4) the MTRCB was only complying with its man-

The CA elucidated further that the rule admits of exceptions, namely: (1) when the impugned orders were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction; (2) where there is patent grave abuse of discretion; or (3) appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an appeal would not relieve the defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs’ baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile case. The CA opined that in this case, Natividad failed to show that this case fell under any of the aforementioned exceptions. 

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MOVIE “BUTAKAL (SUGAPA SA LAMAN)” IS A TRUE TO LIFE DEPICTION OF THE CELEBRATED RAPE-SLAY CASE OF JACQUELINE AND MARIJOY CHIONG OF CEBU CITY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SO AS THERE WAS NO HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE MOVIE TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD IN MTRCB ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 25-99.

The petition is not meritorious. 

Did the CA gravely err in holding that the movie Butakal (Sugapa Sa Laman) is a true to life depiction of the celebrated rape-slay case of Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong of Cebu City even without a hearing by the MTRCB to determine if it was so? As far as this Court is concerned, the first issue raised by Natividad, essentially a factual question, is irrelevant to the resolution of this case

Furthermore, settled is the rule that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. 9 Questions of fact are not proper subjects for this Court unless there is clear and convincing proof that the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; or when the CA failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on re-cord. 1 0 In this petition, Natividad has failed to convince this Court to depart from this well-established doctrine

The second and third issues raised by petitioner are far more grave and certainly relevant to the resolution of this case, concerning as it does the jurisdiction of the MTRCB and questions regarding the proper exercise of the latter’s power. 

The above provisions make it clear that the MTRCB cannot preventively seize the master copy more than 20 days. Thus, the MTRCB erred when it seized and retained the master copy of Butakal for more than 20 days. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The MTRCB is ordered to return the master copy of Butakal to petitioner and to resolve the administrative complaint filed by the Chiongs with dispatch.