Flores v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ban Hua U. Flores was a respondent in SEC Case No. 03328, filed by Johnny K.H. Uy for accounting and turnover of corporate funds of UBS Marketing. Petitioner moved for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction, which was denied. An appeal to the SEC en banc was also denied. Petitioner was declared in default, and Uy presented evidence ex parte. Respondent Hearing Officer Enrique L. Flores Jr. rendered a decision ordering the respondents to turn over books of account, render a full accounting of assets, pay damages, cancel titles, revert properties, pay separation pay, return contingency funds, turn over a truck, return a Hong Kong property, and pay attorney's fees. Procedural History: Petitioner and others appealed the SEC decision to the SEC en banc, which reversed the decision except for the order of accounting. Subsequently, petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Hearing Officer Enrique L. Flores Jr. for violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code (Rendering Unjust Judgment) and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, stating there was no showing of malice or deliberate intent to cause injustice, and that any error was committed in good faith. The Ombudsman also noted that the decision did not cause undue injury as it was corrected by the SEC en banc. The Petition: Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's dismissal, which was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, contending that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint, arguing that the respondent's decision was not made in good faith and that petitioner suffered undue injury.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the private respondent for violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. Whether the private respondent, a hearing officer, can be held liable under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the private respondent acted with malice, bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in rendering his decision in SEC Case No. 03328.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The resolution and order of the Office of the Ombudsman dated September 11, 1996, and September 29, 1998, respectively, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Ombudsman: The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment, or an order bereft of factual and legal justifications. In this case, the Ombudsman's resolution was legally justified because the elements required for liability under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, namely bad faith, were not sufficiently shown. The Court reiterated that a judicial officer is not criminally liable for errors committed in good faith. The Ombudsman's finding of absence of bad faith was not disturbed, consistent with the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory powers. On the applicability of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court noted that Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code specifically applies to judges. The alleged offender in this case was a hearing officer of the SEC, not a judge. Therefore, the charge under Article 204 was misplaced. On whether the private respondent acted with malice, bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the private respondent's bad faith. The Ombudsman's finding that the respondent did not act maliciously or deliberately to do injustice, and that any error was committed in good faith, was supported by the fact that the decision was appealed and corrected by the SEC en banc. The Court also emphasized that mere inconvenience caused by a decision does not amount to undue injury under Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, especially when there is no showing of evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence, and the decision was not final and executory. The Court also deferred to the Ombudsman's discretion and competence in determining the sufficiency of the complaint, noting the policy of non-interference.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a complaint against a hearing officer for rendering an unjust judgment or violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, where there was no showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive, and the decision was timely corrected by a higher body.