Pasok v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rex Y. Dua, an Agricultural Technician II, filed a complaint against petitioner Feliciano S. Pasok, Jr., the Municipal Agriculturist, for malversation of public funds and violations of Republic Act Nos. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The alleged irregularities included non-remittance of proceeds from an agricultural project, non-remittance of fund assistance for a hybrid pigs project, non-delivery of free fungicide, alleged taking of a water pump for personal use, and manipulation of the award of a rice harvester equipment to a fictitious organization. Pasok denied the charges, attributing them to Dua's malice due to his denied promotion. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao (OMB) initially found Pasok guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty and found probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. However, on motion for reconsideration, the OMB set aside these findings without prejudice pending a report from the Commission on Audit (COA). After receiving COA reports, the OMB issued an Order dated 3 January 2013 finding probable cause against Pasok for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, and an Order dated 4 January 2013 finding Pasok guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, meting the penalty of dismissal from the service. Pasok's motions for reconsideration were denied in a Joint-Order dated 13 April 2015. The Petition: Pasok filed a petition for certiorari assailing the OMB's orders, arguing that the OMB acted with grave abuse of discretion by setting aside its previous order and finding probable cause based on COA reports without furnishing Pasok copies or requiring him to comment, thus violating his right to due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it set aside its 29 September 2009 Joint-Order and found probable cause against Pasok on the basis of the COA fact-finding reports without furnishing Pasok a copy thereof or requiring him to comment thereon, thus violating Pasok's right to due process.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Order dated 3 January 2013 and Joint-Order dated 13 April 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao in Case No. OMB-M-C-06-0383-G are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of due process: The Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's power to investigate and prosecute is plenary and unqualified. The Joint-Order dated 29 September 2009 explicitly stated that the setting aside of the earlier decision and resolution was "without prejudice" to the results of the COA fact-finding/audit investigation. This meant that the Ombudsman retained the power to issue further directives after evaluating the COA reports. The Court emphasized that Pasok was given every opportunity to present his allegations and defenses during the preliminary investigation, and his right to due process was not violated. The Court reiterated that in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, its inquiry is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which was not sufficiently shown in this case. The Court cited Dimayuga v. Office of the Ombudsman to support the Ombudsman's discretion to dismiss without prejudice a preliminary investigation if a COA decision is deemed necessary for the investigation and future prosecution of the case, or to pursue the investigation if the COA decision is deemed irrelevant. Therefore, the Ombudsman's decision to proceed after receiving the COA reports was a valid exercise of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman has plenary investigative and prosecutorial powers, and its determination of probable cause is generally given great weight and will not be interfered with by courts absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman may direct other government agencies, such as the COA, to conduct investigations and may set aside prior resolutions without prejudice to the results of such investigations, without violating the right to due process, provided the parties were given an opportunity to be heard during the preliminary investigation.