FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193693. October 8, 2018.]
MIRIAM M. BANGALAN, petitioner, vs.EDEN B. PARADEZA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 8, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193693 (Miriam M. Bangalan v. Eden B. Paradeza). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 of the Decision 2 dated March 16, 2010 and Resolution 3 dated August 19, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105416. The CA dismissed the petition for review of Miriam M. Bangalan (Bangalan) and affirmed the Decision 4 of the Office of the Ombudsman in Case No. OMB-L-A-03-0831-H finding Bangalan guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and ordered her dismissal from the service.
This case originated from a letter-complaint 5 dated August 6, 2003 filed by Eden B. Paradeza (Paradeza) before the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Bangalan, Revenue Officer II, and Perfecto D. Vitug (Vitug), Group Supervisor, both of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue (BIR), of extorting grease money from her.
In her letter-complaint, Paradeza narrated that: (1) on July 10, 2003, she went to the BIR-Olongapo Office to discuss with Bangalan the tax payment scheme in relation to her purchase of two parcels of land; (2) there, Bangalan told her that the parcels of land she bought were undervalued and that if the same were to be properly assessed, the tax payable would amount to P50,000.00 per parcel of land; 6 (3) Bangalan then allegedly offered to arrange for a tax clearance certificate showing a much lower tax assessment for Paradeza's properties in exchange for a "fee" of P60,000.00 which was to be divided among the employees of the BIR Regional Office; 7 (4) although she was initially hesitant, Paradeza was convinced to agree to Bangalan's offer after the latter agreed to pay for the taxes on one transaction only, for an amount of P30,000.00, payable in two installments; 8 (5) after completing the installments, Bangalan, on July 18, 2003, gave Paradeza a tax clearance certificate; 9 (6) upon her brother-in-law's advice, Paradeza reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and (7) in an entrapment operation conducted on August 1, 2003, Bangalan was apprehended in the act of receiving P25,000.00 marked money from Paradeza. 10 CAIHTE
Thus, on August 5, 2003, Paradeza filed a formal letter-complaint against Bangalan and her companion Vitug before the BIR. 11 On August 6, 2003, Paradeza also filed a similar letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. 12
The BIR acted on Paradeza's complaint on September 12, 2003 through a Formal Charge. 13 On September 24, 2003, a Memorandum was submitted by the Special Investigation Division recommending against the imposition of any sanction against Bangalan in the meantime, without prejudice to the presentation of further evidence by the prosecutor assigned to the case. The memorandum was approved by the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Regional Director on even date. 14
On September 19, 2003, and while the complaint against her was still pending before the BIR, Bangalan was placed under preventive suspension for three (3) months by the Office of the Ombudsman. 15 On July 29, 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman found Bangalan guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and ordered her dismissal from service. Meanwhile, the complaint against Vitug was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. 16 Bangalan's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in its Order dated April 16, 2007. 17
Bangalan filed a petition for review 18 via Rule 43 before the CA raising the following issues: (1) whether Paradeza violated the rule against forum shopping when, in addition to the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, she also filed a criminal case for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 19 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, a complaint for unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), and one for grave misconduct before the BIR; (2) whether the Office of the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over the case; and (3) whether the Ombudsman gravely erred in finding Bangalan guilty of grave misconduct. 20
The CA, in its Decision 21 dated March 16, 2010, affirmed the Decision of the Ombudsman. It ruled, among others, that "[Paradeza] initiated the administrative case for grave misconduct against [Bangalan] before the Office of the Ombudsman way ahead of the case she brought before the BIR [and thus,] the Office of the Ombudsman took cognizance of the case x x x to the exclusion of all other fora." 22 It also held that the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence and thus, conclusive, and accorded not only respect but also finality. 23 As to the criminal case for violation of RA No. 3019 before the RTC and the complaint for unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct before the PRC filed against Bangalan, the CA ruled that such cases are distinct from the administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman and the BIR not only in terms of the quantum of evidence required but also in the sense that an absolution from a criminal charge would not bar an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. 24 The administrative case before the PRC, on the other hand, is distinct from the administrative case before the BIR and the Office of the Ombudsman as the former specifically involves petitioner's moral and professional fitness to continue enjoying her license as a certified public accountant. 25
Bangalan filed a Motion for Reconsideration 26 but this was likewise denied. 27
Hence, this petition.
Here, Bangalan argues that: (1) pursuant to the rule against forum shopping, the BIR acquired jurisdiction over the complaint against her first, to the exclusion of other tribunals; 28 (2) the Ombudsman, whose primary jurisdiction covers acts or omissions of public offices occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, has no jurisdiction over her as she is a revenue officer occupying a position with salary grade 16; 29 (3) the Office of the Ombudsman should have respected the decision of the BIR acquitting her of the administrative charge pursuant to the principle of res judicata; 30 (4) the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is not supported by substantial evidence; 31 and (5) the tax computations for the two real properties (i.e., P7,500.00 and P10,921.80, respectively) are too minimal as to warrant the alleged demand of P30,000.00 in grease money. 32
At the outset, the CA already ruled that the criminal case for violation of RA No. 3019 before the RTC and the complaint for unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct before the PRC both filed against Bangalan are distinct from the administrative cases before the BIR and the Office of the Ombudsman. Bangalan did not appeal this particular ruling of the CA and instead argued in her petition before us that the BIR first acquired jurisdiction over the administrative case filed against her.
Thus, we only need to resolve the issue of which between the BIR and the Office of the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over the administrative complaint filed against Bangalan.
We grant the petition and reverse the CA.
We rule that the BIR's exercise of jurisdiction over the administrative complaint is to the exclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Both complaints for grave misconduct filed by Paradeza against Bangalan before the BIR and the Office of the Ombudsman were anchored on the same transaction, i.e., the alleged extortion of grease money from Paradeza in exchange for a reduced tax assessment on the sale of two parcels of land. 33
Under Section 47, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987, 34 the BIR, a government agency, 35 is given the power to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction, subject to initial appeal to the Department of Finance and finally to the Civil Service Commission in proper cases. 36 Section 47 reads in part: HEITAD
Sec. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. — x x x
(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not, exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the other hand, while the Constitution grants the Ombudsman the power to investigate any act or omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient, Section 15 of RA No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or employee only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, that is, cases involving public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. 37
Cases involving acts or omissions of public officials occupying positions with salary grades lower than 27 fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the regular courts, or other investigative agencies. 38 In Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, 39 we ruled that, in administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. 40
Here, at the time of the alleged commission of offense, Bangalan and Vitug were occupying positions with salary grades 13 and 16, 41 respectively. Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is not primary but only concurrent with other disciplining authorities such as the BIR.
While the CA ruled that Paradeza initiated the administrative case for grave misconduct against Bangalan before the Office of the Ombudsman way ahead of the case she brought before the BIR, it failed to specify the dates of the filing of the complaints and the periods within which the Office of the Ombudsman and the BIR acted on the respective complaints. However, based on the records, we note that the complaint-affidavit of Paradeza was filed before the BIR on August 5, 2003 42 while the complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman was filed on August 6, 2003. The BIR acted upon Paradeza's complaint on September 12, 2003 through a Formal Charge, 43 while the Office of the Ombudsman required Bangalan to file a counter-affidavit only on September 13, 2003 44 and placed Bangalan on preventive suspension for three months on September 19, 2003. 45 ATICcS
Since the complaint was filed first in the BIR, which, in turn, opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the BIR's assumption of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
Given the Office of the Ombudsman's lack of jurisdiction, we find it unnecessary to delve into the other matters raised by Bangalan.
WHEREFORE, the petition dated September 22, 2010 is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated March 16, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 19, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105416 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-31.
2.Id. at 35-51. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Mario L. Guarina III and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring.
3.Id. at 53.
4.Id. at 187-207.
5.Id. at 147-148.
6.Id. at 36, 194.
7.Id. at 36-37.
8.Id. at 37.
9.Id. at 38-39.
10.Id. at 38, 191.
11. See Resolution dated February 13, 2017 rendered by the Third Division of the Supreme Court in this case, id. at 346-347.
12.Id. at 147-148.
13. Id. at 99-100.
14. Id. at 123-125.
15. Id. at 38.
16. Supra note 4.
17. Rollo, pp. 233-239.
18. Id. at 240-268.
19. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
20. Rollo, pp. 252-265.
21. Supra note 2.
22. Rollo, p. 42.
23. Id. at 49-50.
24. Id. at 44, citing Paredes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169534, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 577, 587.
25. Id.
26. Rollo, pp. 54-75.
27. Supra note 3.
28. Rollo, pp. 15-16, 20-21.
29. Id. at 16-18. A Revenue Officer II position corresponds to salary grade 13 as per Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades prepared by the Department of Budget and Management pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758, also known as the "Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989." See http://hrdo.upd.edu.ph/index_OccupationalServices.pdf, last viewed on August 30, 2018. See also Updated Index of Occupational Groups, Classes, and Salary Grades at https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/OPCCB/ios/IOS_Updated_Volume%20II_2006.htm, last viewed on August 23, 2018.
30. Rollo, pp. 19-20.
31. Id. at 21-28.
32. Id. at 27-28.
33. Id. at 99-100, 147-148.
34. Executive Order No. 292.
35. Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Section 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987 reads in part:
Sec. 5.Definitions of Terms. — As used in this title, the following shall be construed thus:
(1) Agency means any bureau, office, commission, administration, board, committee, institute, corporation with original charter, whether performing governmental or proprietary function, or any other unit of the National Government, as well as provincial, city, or municipal government, except as hereinafter otherwise provided.
xxx xxx xxx
36. Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 7, Section 47 of the 1987 Administrative Code reads in part:
Sec. 47.Disciplinary Jurisdiction. — (1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.
37. Sec. 15. Powers, Functions, and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) 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. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigations of such cases[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
38. Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 173121, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 35, 45, citing Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001, 354 SCRA 651.
39. Supra.
40. Id. at 45, citing Civil Service Commission v. Alfonso, G.R. No. 179452, June 11, 2009, 589 SCRA 88.
41. Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades prepared by the Department of Budget and Management pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758 also known as the "Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989." See http://hrdo.upd.edu.ph/index_OccupationalServices.pdf; See also Updated Index of Occupational Groups, Classes, and Salary Grades at https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/OPCCB/ios/IOS_Updated_Volume%20II_2006.htm, last viewed on August 23, 2018.
42. In our Resolution dated February 13, 2017 (Rollo, pp. 346-347), we noted the letter dated November 8, 2016 of Jose Ric A. Cabrera, OIC-Head Revenue Executive Assistant, BIR, in compliance with the Resolution of August 31, 2016, informing the Court that based on their records, the BIR received a copy of respondent's complaint-affidavit thru fax from the NBI-Olongapo on August 5, 2003 as shown by a machine copy thereof (Id. at 343-344).
43. Id. at 99-100.
44. Id. at 146.
45. Id. at 38.