Tismo v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A piece of land, Lot 4, registered under TCT No. T-9438 in the name of "ALFRED LARSEN III, ET AL.," was sold by Alfred Larsen III to Basher Sarip Noor (Noor) without the consent of his co-owners, Evelyn Larsen-Tismo and Douglas Roland Larsen. The Registrar of Deeds, Manuel Castrodes Felicia, cancelled the title and issued a new one in Noor's name. Believing the sale to be fraudulent, Ronald Rey Tan Tismo, as attorney-in-fact for Evelyn and Douglas, filed a civil case for recovery of ownership, quieting of title, annulment of documents, and damages. Procedural History: Subsequently, Tismo filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Noor and Felicia before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) for violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and grave misconduct. The Ombudsman dismissed both the criminal and administrative aspects of the complaint, citing the existence of a prejudicial question due to the pending civil case. The Ombudsman reasoned that if the civil case found the transfer of ownership valid, then no violation of RA 3019 would have occurred. The administrative complaint against Noor was dismissed due to his retirement, and the administrative complaint against Felicia was dismissed without prejudice based on the prejudicial question. The Petition: Tismo filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution and Joint Order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the criminal and administrative aspects of the complaint on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Whether the administrative aspect of the petition was the proper remedy before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The Ombudsman's Joint Resolution and Joint Order are partially annulled and set aside insofar as OMB-M-C-15-0171 (criminal aspect) is concerned. OMB-M-C-15-0171 is reinstated and remanded to the Ombudsman. The administrative aspect of the petition is dismissed for being the wrong remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and prejudicial question: The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in outright dismissing the criminal aspect (OMB-M-C-15-0171) on the ground of a prejudicial question. While the first element of a prejudicial question (similar or intimately related issue in a civil action that determines whether the criminal action may proceed) was satisfied, the second element (resolution of the issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed) was also found to be correctly assessed by the Ombudsman. However, the Court emphasized that Section 6, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which applies suppletorily to Ombudsman proceedings, mandates the suspension of the criminal action, not its outright dismissal, when a prejudicial question exists. An outright dismissal would evade the Ombudsman's duty to determine probable cause and could lead to the prescription of the offense, which is contrary to the purpose of suspension, where prescription is tolled. Therefore, the criminal case should have been suspended and remanded to the Ombudsman for further proceedings. On the issue of the propriety of the remedy for the administrative aspect: The Court reiterated the ruling in Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, clarifying that rulings of the Ombudsman exonerating a respondent from administrative liability are final and unappealable but still subject to judicial review via certiorari before the CA. However, rulings imposing penalties other than public censure or suspension of not more than one month's salary are appealable to the CA via Rule 43. For criminal charges, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court is the proper remedy from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause. Since the administrative aspect (OMB-M-A-15-0195) was erroneously elevated directly to the Supreme Court, it is dismissed for being the wrong remedy and deemed to have lapsed into finality.
Main Doctrine
The existence of a prejudicial question only operates to suspend a criminal action, not to dismiss it outright. An outright dismissal by the Ombudsman on this ground constitutes grave abuse of discretion.