Soriano v. Marcelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Hilario P. Soriano, President of Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM), filed criminal complaints against Norberto Nazareno (PDIC President) for illegal pre-termination of lease contracts, against Teodoro Jose B. Hirang (PDIC Department Manager) for perjury, and against Zenaida A. Cabais (BSP-appointed comptroller) for making false statements in an affidavit regarding payments made by RBSM. Soriano also filed a libel complaint against Nazareno for statements made in a Business World interview concerning estafa cases against Soriano. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor's Office recommended the dismissal of the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno for lack of probable cause. Soriano filed petitions for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The complaint against Cabais was forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. Soriano then filed an Affidavit-Complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia with the Ombudsman, alleging gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality for dismissing the Hirang and Nazareno complaints without the approval of the Ombudsman, and for forwarding the Cabais case to the Ombudsman. The Petition: The Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint against Garcia, holding it premature as Soriano had adequate remedies with the DOJ, which he had already availed of. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. Soriano filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's affirmation of the Ombudsman's dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the administrative complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia. Whether City Prosecutor Garcia acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in dismissing the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno. Whether the dismissal of the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno was in accordance with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 20, 2005, and its Resolution dated April 12, 2005, are affirmed. The administrative case against Ramon R. Garcia is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the administrative complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia: The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman was justified in dismissing the administrative case against Garcia because it was premature. The Ombudsman's administrative disciplinary jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing the quasi-judicial findings and decisions of government officials like the City Prosecutor. If Soriano was dissatisfied with the findings of the City Prosecutor, his remedy was to move for reconsideration or file a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which he had already done for the Nazareno and Hirang cases. Section 20(1) of R.A. No. 6770 provides that the Ombudsman may not conduct an investigation if the complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body. Until there is a final determination by the appropriate office that Garcia abused his position or violated rules, the administrative complaint against him remains premature. On the issue of whether City Prosecutor Garcia acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in dismissing the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the administrative case. The CA found satisfactory Garcia's explanation that the alleged libelous act by Nazareno was a personal remark not related to his official duty as PDIC Chief, and that Garcia had no participation in the Hirang case dismissal. The Court reiterated that mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave, capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical, amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the DOJ had already dismissed Soriano's petitions for review in both the Nazareno and Hirang cases on the merits, finding no sufficient basis to impute malice or reversible error in the resolutions. On the issue of whether the dismissal of the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno was in accordance with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001: The Supreme Court clarified that OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is an internal agreement. Respondent Garcia did not ignore the circular; he dismissed the Nazareno case based on the honest belief that he was complying with its guidelines, specifically paragraph 2, which states that offenses not in relation to office and cognizable by regular courts shall be investigated and prosecuted by the Office of the Provincial/City Prosecutor, ruling thereon with finality. Garcia found that Nazareno's interview was a personal undertaking, not related to his official duties. The Court emphasized that whether this finding was correct was beyond the scope of the administrative case against Garcia and should have been resolved in the petition for review with the DOJ. Furthermore, Garcia had no participation in the dismissal of the Hirang case, so the negligence of a subordinate cannot be ascribed to him without evidence of his own negligence.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman's administrative disciplinary jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing the quasi-judicial findings and decisions of government officials like the City Prosecutor. If dissatisfied, the remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review with the Department of Justice. An administrative complaint filed prematurely before the Ombudsman, without a final determination by the appropriate office that the respondent abused his position or violated rules, is dismissible.