Agustin-Se v. Office of the President
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jennifer A. Agustin-Se and Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez, Assistant Special Prosecutors, were assigned to prosecute cases against Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Leopoldo S. Acot and Bgen. (Ret.) Ildelfonso N. Dulinayan, among others, before the Sandiganbayan. The charges stemmed from alleged ghost deliveries of supplies to the Philippine Air Force, amounting to approximately Eighty-Nine Million Pesos (P89,000,000.00). The initial complaint was filed in 1995 before the Ombudsman. Procedural History: An Ombudsman Resolution in April 1996 recommended filing charges for violation of RA No. 3019 and/or Malversation through Falsification. Respondent Orlando C. Casimiro, then Director and later Deputy Ombudsman, concurred with this recommendation. However, subsequent recommendations led to the dismissal of charges against Acot and Dulinayan in March 1998. In 2005, the loss of the case folder was discovered, prompting a review. In 2009, following a memorandum from the Office of Legal Affairs, Casimiro approved the filing of Informations against Acot, Dulinayan, and others. The accused filed motions to quash, citing prescription and violation of their right to speedy disposition. Petitioners, in lieu of a comment, submitted a memorandum detailing procedural lapses attributed to Casimiro. This led to their relief from the cases and a libel complaint filed by Casimiro against them. Petitioners subsequently filed their own administrative complaint against Casimiro and respondent John I.C. Turalba before the Office of the President (OP). The OP dismissed petitioners' complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside the CA's decision, which upheld the OP's dismissal of petitioners' administrative complaint. Petitioners argue that their right to due process was violated, that there was insufficient evidence against respondents, that their preventive suspension was unjustified, and that the OP's decision was not in accordance with the evidence and jurisprudence. They also contend that the OP erred in not taking judicial notice of a previous CA decision and in its application of Executive Order No. 13. The core of the petition revolves around alleged procedural lapses, delays, and potential misconduct by respondents Casimiro and Turalba in the handling of the cases against Acot and Dulinayan, and the subsequent administrative actions taken against the petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioners' right to due process was not violated by the Office of the President when it did not consider the evidence presented by the petitioners during the administrative adjudication. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that there are no substantial evidence on record as against respondent Casimiro for the delay in the disposition and preliminary investigation of OMB-AFP-CRM-94-0218 (SB-09-CRM-0184-0189), and against respondents Casimiro and Turalba for violation of Office Order No. 05-18, Office Order No. 05-13, Violation of Sec. 35 of R.A. 6770 and Sec. 3 (k) of R.A. 3019. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in sustaining the decision of the Office of the President that the preventive suspension of the complainant was by reason of the "delay" in filing their Comment in SB-09-CRM-0184-0189, to the Motion to Quash separately filed by accused Acot and Dulinayan. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in sustaining the decision of the Office of the President in dismissing the complaint against respondents, which is not in accord with the evidence on record, but contrary to established jurisprudence and its previous rulings. This includes the question of whether the elements of malicious prosecution were met. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in applying the provisions of Executive Order No. 13. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in sustaining the ruling of the Office of the President when it failed to rule on various issues raised by the petitioners, such as: (1) failure to consider the findings of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. 114210; (2) failure to rule on the issue that the Office of the President erroneously concluded that the preventive suspension of the complainant was justified by reason of the delay in filing their Comment; and (3) whether or not the finding of the Office of the President is correct that there was no evidence relative to the undue injury caused to the People and to petitioners. This also includes the question of whether the CA should have taken judicial notice of a decision from another division of the CA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which in turn affirmed the Decision of the Office of the President dismissing the administrative complaint filed by petitioners against respondents Casimiro and Turalba.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the issues raised and Due Process: The Court held that the issues presented by the petitioners, such as whether the Court of Appeals considered their evidence, whether there was substantial evidence against the respondents, and whether their preventive suspension was justified by delay, all involve a review of the facts and the probative value of the evidence. These are questions of fact, which are generally not proper for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will not disturb the findings of the lower courts unless there are recognized exceptions, which were not present in this case. The Court found that both the OP and the CA considered the pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties. The Court found the petitioners' contentions regarding due process to be untenable. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard and to seek reconsideration. The petitioners were afforded these opportunities through their pleadings, motions for reconsideration, and appeals. The Court found that the evidence presented by the petitioners was considered by the OP and the CA, contrary to their allegations. On Inordinate Delay and Confidentiality of Memorandum: The Court ruled that the delay in the filing of Informations against Acot and Dulinayan could not be solely attributed to Casimiro. The records showed procedural layers of review and a modification of the initial resolution to dismiss the charges. Casimiro, appointed Deputy Ombudsman later, had the right to presume regularity. The Court also noted that Casimiro's review of the case was prompted by the discovery of a missing folder and the need to address irregularities, which was a responsible action rather than an indication of undue interest. The Court found no merit in the allegation that Casimiro and Turalba violated confidentiality rules. The January 5, 2010 Memorandum was not marked as confidential and did not contain classified information. Therefore, it did not qualify as a "protected disclosure" under the Office Order No. 05-18, as it was not made under oath and lacked clear indication of confidentiality. Consequently, Turalba's act of furnishing a copy to Casimiro, who was the subject of the memorandum, did not violate any rules on confidentiality under RA No. 3019 or RA No. 6713, nor Office Order No. 05-13. On Preventive Suspension: The Court found that the evidence presented by the petitioners was considered by the OP and the CA, contrary to their allegations. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Executive Order No. 13, which transferred functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), does not require decisions on complaints against presidential appointees to be issued by a collegial body; the ODESLA is merely a fact-finding and recommendatory body, and its recommendation is not essential for the validity of the President's decision. On Malicious Prosecution: The Court held that the elements of malicious prosecution were not met. Casimiro had probable cause to file a complaint against the petitioners based on their actions, such as submitting a memorandum instead of a required comment and their subsequent resistance to authority. The Internal Affairs Board found petitioners guilty of Simple Discourtesy, indicating that Casimiro's actions were not impelled by malice or bad faith, which are the gravamen of malicious prosecution. On Executive Order No. 13: The Court clarified that Executive Order No. 13, which transferred functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), does not require decisions on complaints against presidential appointees to be issued by a collegial body; the ODESLA is merely a fact-finding and recommendatory body, and its recommendation is not essential for the validity of the President's decision. On Stare Decisis and Res Judicata: The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the CA should have taken judicial notice of a decision from another division of the CA. The Court reiterated that decisions of a CA division are not binding on other divisions, and only Supreme Court decisions form part of the legal system. Furthermore, the subject matter of the CA case cited by petitioners was different from the issues in the present case, as it concerned the delay in petitioners' filing of pleadings, not the administrative complaint against Casimiro.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the administrative complaint against public officials, holding that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations of delay in disposition, violation of confidentiality, and malicious prosecution. The Court emphasized that issues involving the appreciation of evidence are questions of fact not proper for a Rule 45 petition, and that the petitioners were afforded due process. The Court also clarified that a memorandum not marked as confidential is not protected disclosure, and that decisions of a Court of Appeals division do not bind other divisions.