King v. Robles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rogelio Gebilaguin (Rogelio) won an illegal dismissal case against Azkcon Group of Companies (Azkcon). A writ of execution was issued to collect P471,200.99. Deputy Sheriffs levied on personal properties found at Azkcon's compound in Marilao, Bulacan. Philippine Metal and Alloy Fabrication Corporation (PMAFC), represented by Antonio Z. King (King), filed a Third Party Claim and a Motion to Quash, asserting ownership of the properties and claiming they were worth P12 million. Labor Arbiter (LA) Francisco A. Robles (Arbiter Robles) ordered Rogelio to post an indemnity bond, which was approved. Rogelio, through his attorney-in-fact Rodrigo Mendoza, emerged as the highest bidder in the auction and began hauling the properties. Procedural History: King filed criminal complaints for Robbery, Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), and Falsification of Public Documents against Arbiter Robles, the Sheriffs, and the private respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The OMB dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause in a Joint Resolution dated August 29, 2008, and denied the Motion for Reconsideration on November 17, 2010. The OMB found that 'intent to gain' was absent because the properties were acquired through a legal auction sale. The Petition: King filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, insisting that probable cause exists. He argued that the respondents conspired to rob Azkcon, that the value of the properties taken far exceeded the judgment award (over-levy), and that the Deputy Sheriffs committed procedural errors in the notice and conduct of the auction sale to facilitate the unlawful taking.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Joint Resolution and Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court (SC) held that the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Under Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), the OMB has broad latitude in investigating and prosecuting public officers, and its findings are generally not subject to judicial review unless tainted with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. In this case, the OMB correctly found that the elements of Robbery were not present because 'intent to gain' (animus lucrandi) was absent; the properties were taken pursuant to a Certificate of Sale issued after a public auction. Regarding the charge under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), the Court agreed that the Deputy Sheriffs acted in accordance with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Manual on Execution of Judgment, and there was no evidence of manifest partiality or bad faith. Furthermore, the allegation of 'over-levy' is a factual matter that requires the evaluation of evidence, which is improper in a Rule 45 petition as the SC is not a trier of facts. Applying the ruling in Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans v. Tabasondra, the Court emphasized that it will not interfere with the OMB's discretion when the resolution is based on substantial evidence and the complaint is bereft of sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief of guilt.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court (SC) maintains a policy of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's (OMB) determination of probable cause. This constitutional officer is given wide latitude to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers free from judicial intervention, provided the exercise of power is not arbitrary or despotic. Consequently, findings of the Ombudsman supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed, particularly when the issues raised involve the appreciation of factual matters which are beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition.