Samson v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Moises S. Samson filed a complaint against respondents Dr. Leonito L. Catarroja and Norma Sanchez for alleged violation of Section 3(b), (e), and (h) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charges stemmed from allegations that Dr. Catarroja caused the printing of health certificates without serial numbers, sold them to Ms. Sanchez and an employee of the Business Permits and Licenses Office (BPLO), who then resold them to fixers. These fixers allegedly disposed of the certificates to applicants for a higher price without official receipts and without prior medical examination. Specific instances cited involved the issuance of 20 health certificates to employees of Max restaurant and one to Alberto de Jesus without required examinations and immunizations, in exchange for payment. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through its Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau, issued a joint resolution on May 27, 1994, dismissing both petitioner's complaint and the private respondents' counter-charges for libel, falsification, and perjury, citing lack of probable cause. Petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was denied by order dated August 26, 1994. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to reverse the Ombudsman's dismissal of his complaint, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner's complaint for violation of RA 3019. Whether mandamus may lie to compel the Ombudsman to reverse its findings and dispositions.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence to establish probable cause. Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Court held that the public respondent did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal of the complaint was based on the finding that the evidence on record failed to substantiate the alleged anomalies. The petitioner failed to present evidence that Dr. Catarroja personally printed health certificates, and a Special Committee found that the health certificate issued to Alberto de Jesus was printed and issued officially by the Quezon City Health Department. Furthermore, the petitioner did not present sworn statements from any alleged complaining witnesses to support his claims. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman's professional judgment in assessing probable cause should be respected unless tainted by grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that the calibration of evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists is a question of fact, which the Supreme Court, in a certiorari proceeding, does not ordinarily pass upon. The Court noted that for liability under Section 3(b) of RA 3019, there must be a request or receipt of a gift or benefit. Under Section 3(e), there must be undue injury or unwarranted benefits with evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, or manifest partiality. Under Section 3(h), there must be a financial or pecuniary interest in a prohibited transaction. The Court found that the petitioner failed to present proof of probable cause to hold the private respondents liable under any of these provisions. The evidence presented did not establish that the respondents caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits, nor did it show any financial interest in prohibited transactions. The findings of the Special Committee, which found no sufficient evidence against Dr. Catarroja and Ms. Sanchez, further supported the Ombudsman's dismissal of the case. The Court underscored the wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted to the Office of the Ombudsman by the Constitution and RA 6770. These powers are designed to insulate the office from outside pressure and improper influence. The Court's role is to respect the Ombudsman's findings unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, to avoid swamping the courts with petitions assailing investigatory proceedings. The Court clarified that sufficient proof of guilt must be adduced for a criminal case to proceed to trial. If the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible for lack of probable cause, the Court will respect such finding. The petitioner's complaint was based on suspicion rather than substantiated evidence, leading to the dismissal by the Ombudsman. On the availability of mandamus: The Court ruled that mandamus will not lie in this case. Mandamus is available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The Ombudsman's duty to investigate and determine probable cause involves the exercise of professional judgment and discretion. Therefore, the Court cannot be compelled by mandamus to reverse the Ombudsman's findings and dispositions, as this would encroach upon its discretionary powers granted by the Constitution and RA 6770.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause unless there is grave abuse of discretion, as the calibration of evidence to assess probable cause is a question of fact within the Ombudsman's professional judgment.