FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12340. October 19, 2022.]
RAUL LAO APURILLO AND ERLINDA LAO APURILLO, complainants,vs. ATTY. JULITA M. CALDERON AND ATTY. JULITO M. RAMO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12340 (Raul Lao Apurillo and Erlinda Lao Apurillo v. Atty. Julita M. Calderon and Atty. Julito M. Ramo). — Like all constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." On the same note, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law." 1
Factual Antecedents
The present disbarment case stems from a Complaint Affidavit 2 filed by Erlinda and Raul Apurillo against Attorneys Julita M. Calderon (Calderon) and Julito M. Ramo (Ramo). 3 Complainants alleged that sometime in July of 2018, they filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against one Mary S. Adelino (Adelino), who, at that time, held the position of Director IV-Cluster 2-Social Security Services and Housing of the Commission on Audit (COA). On October 11, 2016, 4 they wrote the Chairperson of the COA, requesting for certified copies of the sale documents between the National Housing Authority (NHA) and National Economic and Development Authority-Philippine Institute for Development Studies (NEDA-PIDS), and between the Department of Health-Philippine Children's Medical Center (PCMC) and NHA, of the property located in Agham Road corner Quezon Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, where PCMC is situated. 5 Complainants alleged that the sale was executed and perfected using spurious and fraudulent documents, and that the concomitant sale is illegal, and should be declared null and void. 6
The request was subsequently rejected by Adelino, who informed complainants that while the NHA is under the audit jurisdiction of Cluster 2, the documents subject of the complainants' request are documents of the NHA and the other agencies and instrumentalities party to the sale transaction (i.e., PCMC). The COA-Cluster 2 does not have custody or possession of these documents, and only when this transaction and/or entities are subjected to audit, shall these documents come to the purview of the COA. 7 Adelino further advised the complainants that to facilitate their request, it is best that they address their request directly to the NHA and/or PCMC. Lastly, Adelino in her reply considered the purpose of complainants' request as "fishing" for evidence preparatory to filing a case against a public officer and for no other legitimate purpose. 8
This prompted complainants to file a Complaint Affidavit 9 against Adelino alleging that her act/s amount to grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices under Republic Act No. 3019. 10 However, in a letter 11 dated August 29, 2018, the Office of the Ombudsman, through Ramo, Action Officer-Graft Investigation Officer II and noted by Calderon, of the Public Assistance Bureau (PAB), treated complainant's Complaint Affidavit as a Request for Assistance (RAS) and deemed the same closed in view of Adelino's insistence on the legal impediments relative to their request for release of documents.
Thus, complainants filed this instant disbarment case against Calderon and Ramo for their alleged unauthorized intervention and meddling in the administrative case against Adelino. CAIHTE
In a Resolution 12 dated January 23, 2019, We required respondents to file their comment. By way of compliance, respondents Calderon and Ramo presented to the Court an overview of the public assistance function of the Office of the Ombudsman as encapsulated in Republic Act No. 6770 13 otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989."
To provide prompt, efficient, and responsive service to all its clients as mandated by the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Ombudsman's PAB was organized. The PAB is the frontline service provider of the Office of the Ombudsman that specifically caters to the complaint, inquiries, and requests for assistance by the clients of the Ombudsman. 14 As the respondents put it, the PAB discharges its mandate by primarily extending assistance to citizens in obtaining basic public services from the government, among other concerns brought to the office. 15
The complaint submitted by the Apurillos was referred by the Central Records Division, the unit of the Office of the Ombudsman in charge of receiving complaints and other documents from the public, to the PAB for appropriate action. 16 The role of the PAB is limited to determining the appropriate action under prevailing PAB guidelines as laid out in Ombudsman Office Circular No. 4, series of 2018. Respondents emphasized it was then Assistant Ombudsman Edna E. Diño (Diño) who classified the complaint in the Case Evaluation and Prioritization Sheet (CEPS) as a RAS. Respondents have no discretion to treat the complaint otherwise; instead, they are mandated to follow the directive of the Assistant Ombudsman. 17
Moreover, during their conference, Adelino informed them that their office has already issued an official definitive negative stand relative to the request for release of documents. 18 Moreover, complainants themselves manifested during said conference that they have decided to pursue their case against COA at the proper forum. 19
Issue
The issue here is whether respondents acted in grave abuse of discretion in treating the complainants' complaint against Adelino as a RAS and in closing the case, instead of treating the same as a formal administrative complaint against Adelino.
Our Ruling
The complaint utterly lacks merit.
In Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Reyes, 20 the Supreme Court has emphasized that the term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning.
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." x x x. 21
One who imputes grave abuse of discretion should be able to show clearly that the act complained of was done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment and not a just a mere mistake in judgment or error.
Government offices, like the Office of the Ombudsman, are allowed by law to create its own structure and rules in the discharge of their primary mandate. Under Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act, the Office of the Ombudsman have been granted the power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. 22 In addition, the Ombudsman has likewise been given the power to direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any officer or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, as well as any government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. 23 The same law mandates the Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions, and duties. 24
Respondents' counter-argument revolves around the Office of the Ombudsman Circular No. 4, Series of 2018 which provides the Expanded Guidelines on Handling Requests for Assistance and Other Forms of Assistance in Relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2018. To provide the complainants ample context, the respondents emphasized that complaints, requests, and other types of appeals for assistance coming from the public may either be classified as RAS or other forms of assistance (OFA). 25
RAS refers to any concern seeking redress, relief or public assistance which does not necessarily amount to a criminal, administrative, or forfeiture complaint, wherein the office is mandated to intervene within the primary scope of its powers, functions, and jurisdictions, including referrals made by the Records Units. 26
Moreover, Office of the Ombudsman Office Order No. 240, Series of 2016 sheds light on the process outline for case evaluation and classification, as reproduced below: DETACa
All documents received shall be categorized by the designated verifier/s of each record office into the following:
(a) New complaints;
(b) Pleadings and other submissions filed in relation to existing cases;
(c) Internal and external communications; and
(d) Miscellaneous, such as requests, queries, or reports relating to Statements of Assets and Liabilities of public officers and employees.
For the purposes of this Office Order, a "complaint" is one that contains verifiable leads or information sufficient to warrant the exercise by the Ombudsman of its investigatory and/or prosecutional powers, as well as other allied functions.
All new complaints received, in whatever form, shall be forwarded to the Records Office of the Ombudsman-Central, or the area or sectoral office concerned, given a reference number, and subsequently referred to the lawyer-evaluator (the "Evaluator") for case evaluation and classification.
xxx xxx xxx
At least two Evaluators shall be assigned to each records office to act on all new complaints. Each evaluator shall act on his or her assigned cases separately.
Case evaluation and classification shall be completed within five (5) working days from receipt of a complaint. The findings and recommended course of action of an Evaluator shall be documented in the Evaluation Sheet, which shall be submitted to his or her office head. Within three (3) days from receipt of the Evaluation Sheet, the office head shall either adopt or reject the findings and recommendation of the Evaluator, and submit the Evaluation Sheet along with his or her action to the Ombudsman for approval/proper action.
Among other things, the Evaluator may recommend the following courses of action on the new complaint:
(a) Referral to other agencies/offices with exclusive jurisdiction over the person/subject matter; other agencies/offices that have concurrent jurisdiction with the Ombudsman; or other area or sectoral offices
(b) For Mediation
(c) For consideration as a Request for Assistance
(d) For Fact-Finding
(e) Docketing x x x
(f) Outright Dismissal. 27
Following the above procedure, the complaint filed by complainants against Adelino, as contained in the Case Evaluation and Prioritization Sheet 28 with IC Number IC-OC-18-1216, bore a notation "RAS" as evaluated by Atty. Ilyn Manongtong on July 4, 2018, recommended for approval by Atty. Sheryl Fortune V. Supapo-Sandigan, and approved by Ombudsman Diño.
Based on the foregoing, the acts imputed to respondents cannot be considered unauthorized or in grave abuse of their discretion or power. On the contrary, respondents regularly performed their functions in faithful compliance with their office procedure.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Antolin v. Domondon, 637 Phil. 164, 181-182 (2010).
2. Rollo, pp. 1-7.
3. Id. at 9-16.
4. Id. at p. 96.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 10-11.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 96.
9. Id. at 9-17.
10. Id. at 9-16.
11. Id. at 18.
12. Id. at 46.
13. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: November 17, 1989.
14. Rollo, p. 73.
15. Id. at 50.
16. Id. at 51.
17. Id. at 52.
18. Id. at 53.
19. Id. at 54.
20. G.R. No. 236686, February 5, 2020. Citation omitted.
21. Id. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
22. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6770, Sec. 15 (1).
23. Id. at Sec. 15 (2).
24. Id. at Sec. 18.
25. Rollo, p. 50.
26. Office of the Ombudsman Office Circular No. 4, Series of 2018, Sec. 3 (1).
27. Rollo, pp. 75-76. Emphases and underscoring supplied.
28. Id. at 84-85.