Young v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Walter Young, counsel for Allied Finance and Leasing Corporation (ALFC), filed a petition for certiorari seeking to reverse the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman dismissing his complaint against respondent members of the Panel of Hearing Officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The complaint alleged violations of paragraphs (e) and (i) of Section 3, Republic Act 3019, and Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. Procedural History: The case originated from SEC Case No. EB-187 concerning the suspension of payments of Ruby Industrial Corporation (RUBY). An SEC Order dated 10 August 1984 created a Management Committee. Subsequently, on 29 May 1990, a petition to create a new Management Committee and approve a revised rehabilitation plan was filed. After pleadings, the SEC referred the matter to the respondent hearing officers. Hearings were scheduled, and orders were issued regarding the submission of comments and the approval of a new management committee and rehabilitation plan. Appeals were filed by ALFC, minority stockholders, and the management committee. An order to implement the 18 September 1991 decision was granted but later interdicted by a writ of preliminary injunction from the SEC en banc. The Petition: On 13 July 1992, petitioner Walter Young filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the respondent hearing officers for alleged corrupt practices and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on 5 March 1993 and denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Whether the service of notice of the orders dated 19 August 1991 and 18 September 1991 was properly effected. Whether the respondent hearing officers acted without jurisdiction and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment when they issued the 'implement order' of 12 December 1991. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural defect: The Court noted the fatal defect pointed out by the Solicitor General regarding the petitioner's failure to move for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Resolution dated 5 March 1993 within the reglementary period. The Ombudsman's Order dated 1 June 1993 correctly stated that the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the inextensible period of five (5) days from notice. This procedural infirmity ordinarily warrants dismissal. On the service of notice: The Court accorded due respect and weight to the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that the law firm of "Ocampo, Quiroz, Mina and Associates," which represented both ALFC and the Chairman of the Management Committee, was invariably furnished with copies of the assailed orders. The legal conclusion is that service of notice was properly effected, as notice to the law firm appearing for a client is notice upon the client himself. On the alleged lack of jurisdiction and unjust judgment: The Court held that it would be premature for the Ombudsman, or for the Supreme Court, to preempt the SEC en banc on the matter of the 'implement order' dated 12 December 1991, as the orders of the hearing officers were still pending consideration by the SEC en banc. Courtesy and procedural rules dictate that the SEC en banc should rule on the matter first. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, it will not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman. The rule is based on respect for the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory powers and on practicality, to avoid swamping the courts with innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings. In this instance, given the attendant circumstances, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. Procedural technicalities designed to ensure the proper dispensation of justice must be observed.