Jabinal v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Parina R. Jabinal, a Division Manager and Legal Officer of the National Housing Authority (NHA), was charged with violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for allegedly engaging in the private practice of law without prior authorization. The complaint alleged that in 2008, while employed by the NHA, she notarized two documents: a Deed of Sale dated August 20, 2008, and a Deed of Assignment dated September 30, 2008, for which she received ₱30,000.00. It was noted that her notarial commission for Quezon City was only issued in March 2009, covering the period 2009-2010, although she had filed a petition for a notarial commission in February 2008. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Field Investigation Office, filed a complaint against petitioner. On May 16, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for two counts of violation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration were denied in a Joint Order dated December 2, 2016, affirming the May 16, 2016 Resolution. Consequently, Informations for two counts of violation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713 were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution and Joint Order. She argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in factually assuming that her acts constituted habitual and/or unauthorized private practice of law, and in finding probable cause despite her claims of good faith, inadvertence, and existing judicial pronouncements.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioner for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713. Whether the petitioner's act of notarizing two documents in 2008 constituted unauthorized private practice of law under Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, and whether the petitioner's claim of good faith and inadvertence constitutes a valid defense at the preliminary investigation stage.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution dated May 16, 2016, and the Joint Order dated December 2, 2016, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause: The Supreme Court reiterated that both the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 grant the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials. The Ombudsman, being armed with the power to investigate, is in a better position to assess the evidence for a finding of probable cause. The Court's policy is to maintain non-interference in the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of power, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a legal duty. The petitioner failed to sufficiently establish such grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. On whether the petitioner's act of notarizing two documents constituted unauthorized private practice of law, and on the petitioner's claim of good faith and inadvertence: The Court found that Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713 prohibits public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by law or the Constitution, and provided such practice does not conflict with their official functions. Memorandum Circular No. 17 allows government employees to engage in private practice with written permission from the Department head. The petitioner admitted notarizing a Deed of Sale and a Deed of Assignment in August and September 2008, for which she was paid ₱30,000.00. These acts fall within the ambit of the practice of law, requiring prior request and approval from the NHA. However, there was no showing of any written authority from the NHA in 2008. Furthermore, the records indicated that she was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2008. Her petition for a notarial commission filed in February 2008 was stamped received by the Office of the Clerk of Court on February 10, 2009, and her IBP and PTR numbers were issued in January 2009, indicating that the petition was filed in 2009, not 2008. Therefore, there was no pending petition for a notarial commission when she notarized the documents in August and September 2008, and consequently, no authority from the NHA for such practice. The petitioner claimed good faith and inadvertence, believing she was a commissioned notary public and that her acts did not constitute habituality. The Court held that such claims are evidentiary in nature and constitute matters of defense. The truth of these claims can only be determined after a full-blown trial on the merits. A preliminary investigation is not the venue for an exhaustive display of evidence but rather for determining whether a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty thereof. The Ombudsman correctly found probable cause based on the evidence presented, which showed that the acts complained of constituted the offense charged.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman's determination of probable cause is given wide latitude and is generally accorded respect by the Supreme Court, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. A claim of good faith and inadvertence in performing acts that constitute a violation of law is an evidentiary matter best determined during a full-blown trial on the merits, not during a preliminary investigation.