Angara-Ularan v. Office of the Ombudsman

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 226960-61. November 14, 2016.]

KAREN G. ANGARA-ULARAN, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NELIANTO C. BIHASA, GINA T. RITUAL, REYNALDO E. MAPINDAN, RAMIR D. DUASO, NOEL P. GO, FELIPE M. FRIGINAL, CURIE S. BERNARDINO, PEDRO FERNANDO D. VALENZUELA, DANILO M. ONG, GINA Z. AGAPITO, MEINRADO C. TROPICALES, FRANCISCO R. REOPTA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 226960-61 — Karen G. Angara-Ularan, petitioner, v. Office of the Ombudsman, Nelianto C. Bihasa, Gina T. Ritual, Reynaldo E. Mapindan, Ramir D. Duaso, Noel P. Go, Felipe M. Friginal, Curie S. Bernardino, Pedro Fernando D. Valenzuela, Danilo M. Ong, Gina Z. Agapito, Meinrado C. Tropicales, Francisco R. Reopta, respondents.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioner to: 1) file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Ombudsman Joint Resolution dated March 1, 2016; and, 2) show that the Ombudsman (OMB) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing said Joint Resolution dismissing the charges against respondents in OMB-L-C-15-0220 1 and OMB-L-A-15-0282. 2

Petitioner argues that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when she dismissed the complaint despite sufficient evidence against respondents Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Members, Ex-Officio SB Member, Municipal Budget Officer, and Human Resource and Management Officer of Baler, Aurora.

First, the Court notes that petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration on the assailed OMB Joint Resolution before filing the Petition for Certiorari with the Court.

A petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and its very nature requires that the tribunal issuing the decision or order be first given an opportunity to correct itself. As such, a prior motion for reconsideration must first be filed on the assailed issuance before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 3 At the same time, the filing of such motion for reconsideration is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to assail the Resolution of the OMB. 4 Hence, for failure on the part of petitioner to file such motion the Petition for Certiorari must fail.

Second, the Court finds that the OMB committed no grave abuse of discretion or such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction 5 in issuing her Joint Resolution.

In the assailed Joint Resolution, the OMB decreed that there was no showing that respondents persuaded, induced, or influenced any public officer to perform an unlawful act or allowed themselves to be persuaded or influenced to do the same; or caused any undue injury to the government or any party. She added that the COA issued a notice of settlement on the subject cottages thereby negating the charge of overpriced contract. She also explained that petitioner failed to prove that respondents misappropriated, or allowed another to misappropriate public funds or property; or utilized public funds for a public purpose different from that for which the funds were appropriated. Likewise, she declared that petitioner failed to refute respondents' assertion that petitioner's request for release of SB reserve fund was not immediately granted, as her request was not accompanied by the required supporting documents. She stressed that petitioner did not substantiate all the charges against respondents. AaCTcI

Thus, in the absence of a compelling reason or grave abuse of discretion, our policy of non-interference with the OMB — whereby the Court respects the OMB's constitutionally guaranteed independence by giving her wide latitude to exercise her investigatory and prosecutory powers as she passes upon criminal complaints against public officials and employees — must be applied here. Such is the case since the determination of existence (or non-existence) of probable cause against public officers and employees is the function of the OMB and the Court cannot interfere with such function in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the OMB. 6

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the March 1, 2016 Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-L-C-15-0220 and OMB-L-A-15-0282.

SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. For violation of Articles 183, 213, 217, 220, 287, and 353 of the Revised Penal Code, and of Section 3 (a), (e), and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019.

2. For violation of Section 5 of RA 6713, Section 11 of RA 9485, Section 336, in relation to Section 445 of RA 7160, Grave Misconduct, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

3. See Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco Workers Union — Association of Genuine Labor Organizations, G.R. 180962, 717 SCRA 340, 355 (2014).

4. Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, 473 PHIL. 372, 378 (2004).

5. Id.

6. See Casing vs. Ombudsman, 687 Phil. 468, 475-476, 481 (2012).