Montebon v. Dacanay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edwin Salimbangon entered into a Rattan Cutting Contract with the government and subsequently a Rattan Supply Contract with Tradewinds Rattan and Handicraft, Inc. (TRHI), represented by its Vice-President Robert Lim. Petitioner Trifilo Montebon was appointed as TRHI's agent to process papers for the supply and release of rattan poles. Officers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) filed a complaint against Montebon for possession of rattan poles without a government permit, in violation of P.D. No. 705. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) directed Montebon to take possession of the seized poles but prohibited their disposal. The MTC found a prima facie case, leading to an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Montebon filed a motion to quash, claiming he had paid all forest charges. Meanwhile, Lim cancelled Montebon's authority and appointed Wilfredo Fortuna as the new agent. The RTC dismissed the case against Montebon, finding he had paid the charges, but Montebon refused to turn over the poles to TRHI. Fortuna and Montebon both applied for a Certificate of Minor Forest Products Origin (CMFPO) for the poles. Lim also applied and was approved by Alfredo Madrid, OIC of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), while Montebon's application was denied due to his revoked authority. When the poles were released to TRHI, Montebon filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB-MIN) against DENR personnel and later supplemented it to include Lim and Salimbangon, alleging conspiracy in releasing the poles to TRHI. Respondents argued Montebon had no right to possession as he was merely an agent whose authority was revoked, and the CMFPO issuance to TRHI was proper as TRHI owned the poles and paid the fees. Procedural History: Based on the OMB-MIN Resolution, two Informations were filed with the RTC against DENR personnel and Lim and Salimbangon for violation of Sections 3(e) and (h) of Republic Act 3019. The RTC ordered a reinvestigation, and the City Prosecutor recommended dismissal of one case and found probable cause against Lim and Salimbangon in the other. The OMB-MIN disapproved this resolution and denied their motion for reconsideration. Lim and Salimbangon appealed to the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila. The Office of the Ombudsman in Manila affirmed their appeal, recommending dismissal of the complaint and withdrawal of the Informations against them, stating that TRHI officers did not cause undue injury or obtain unwarranted benefit as the poles were legally theirs and fees were paid by TRHI. Montebon's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Montebon filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Memoranda of the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the dismissal of petitioner's complaint and the withdrawal of the Informations against respondents Lim and Salimbangon. Whether the Supreme Court can review factual matters in a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Memorandum of the Office of the Ombudsman recommending the dismissal of the complaint and withdrawal of the Informations against respondents Lim and Salimbangon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the petition must fail. Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of public officers. The consistent policy of the Supreme Court is not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory powers. In the absence of a clear case of abuse of discretion, courts will not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman. The Court found no taint of grave abuse of discretion, nor any indication of arbitrary or despotic action, in the Ombudsman's approval of the Legal Counsel's Memorandum recommending dismissal. The Memorandum correctly noted that the rattan poles were in the possession of the petitioner as an agent of TRHI, the true owner, and that TRHI had paid the necessary fees and charges. Therefore, TRHI's officers did not cause undue injury or obtain unwarranted benefit by taking what was legally theirs. On the issue of whether the Supreme Court can review factual matters in a petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. Certiorari is extra ordinem, beyond the ambit of appeal. Factual matters cannot normally be inquired into by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. The Court cannot be tasked to re-examine proofs to ascertain if lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies were correct in their assessment of evidence. The petitioner's contention that respondents Lim and Salimbangon conspired with public respondents in releasing the poles to TRHI, made possible by the issuance of the CMFPO to Lim, involves a review of factual matters, which is outside the scope of the present petition.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. Factual matters are generally beyond the scope of a certiorari proceeding.