Tan v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Annie Tan sought to register two trucks with replaced engines. For the first truck (Certificate of Registration No. 0722440-1), respondent Rodolfo V. Bucu, Officer-in-Charge of LTO Sta. Mesa Branch, Manila, advised petitioner to secure the conformity of Angel Tan due to a reported chattel mortgage on the vehicle. For the second truck (Certificate of Registration No. 0147710-3), Bucu informed petitioner that it could only be registered in the Diliman District Office, as per LTO regulations. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Bucu, which was recommended for dismissal by Hearing Officer Atty. Consolacion Beltran and approved by Regional Director Francisco de Vera. Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Bucu, Beltran, and de Vera for violation of Section 3(e)-(f) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no merit, and later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking review of the Ombudsman's resolutions, alleging that Bucu unduly delayed the registration on a flimsy reason, and that Beltran and de Vera acted with partiality and denied her due process. She contended that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent LTO officials were guilty of graft or corrupt practices under Section 3(e) and (f) of R.A. No. 3019 in failing to register the first vehicle. Whether respondents Beltran and de Vera were guilty of partiality and denial of due process.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing petitioner's complaint are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of R.A. No. 3019 by respondent Bucu: The Court held that respondent Bucu was justified in deferring the registration of the change of engine for the first truck. Bucu had been furnished with a letter from Angel Tan requesting that any transaction on the vehicle be held in abeyance due to a chattel mortgage, and a copy of the chattel mortgage agreement itself. Although there was a discrepancy in the engine number cited in the chattel mortgage agreement and the letter-request, Bucu's action of advising petitioner to settle the matter with Angel Tan first was prudent, especially since a complaint for a sum of money had already been filed by Angel Tan against Annie Tan, and a writ of preliminary attachment had been issued against the vehicle. To have readily allowed the registration would have caused undue injury to Angel Tan or given unwarranted advantage to petitioner, thus violating Section 3(e). Furthermore, there was no allegation that Bucu refused registration for pecuniary or material benefit, or to favor his own interest or discriminate against another, which are essential for a case under Section 3(f). On the alleged partiality and denial of due process by respondents Beltran and de Vera: The Court found no merit in petitioner's claims. The records showed that petitioner testified during the hearing and was afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel. Her claim of being denied access to LTO records was belatedly raised. The failure to have the hearing recorded by a stenographer was not shown to be irregular. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against these officials.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against LTO officials for alleged violation of the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as the evidence showed that the official's actions were justified by the existence of a chattel mortgage and a pending court case, and the petitioner was not denied due process.