SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241869. October 8, 2018.]
SHEILA N. CASTALONI, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ARCHIPELAGO PHILIPPINES FERRIES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY EBONA C. MUYANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241869 (Sheila N. Castaloni v. Office of the Ombudsman and Archipelago Philippines Ferries Corporation, represented by Ebona C. Muyano)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Sheila N. Castaloni (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the respondent Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) gravely abused its discretion in issuing its June 16, 2017 Resolution 2 and May 21, 2018 Order 3 in OMB-C-C-16-0356, finding probable cause to indict her for violation of Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019. 4 HTcADC
A finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is a finding of fact which is generally not reviewable by this Court, except only when the Ombudsman's action is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, 5 which is absent in this case. No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against petitioner for the above-stated crime, 6 considering the prima facie showing that her refusal to act on respondent Archipelago Philippines Ferries Corporation's applications for value-added tax exemption on the importation of its vessels despite the favorable ruling by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 7 and her insistence on the submission of an updated Authority to Import Vessels from the Maritime Industry Authority were without sufficient justification and intended to discriminate against respondent. 8 As aptly observed by the Ombudsman, such would be a useless requirement, considering that the vessels had already arrived in the Philippines, and had been cleared for registration. 9
With the dismissal of the instant petition, petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is necessarily DENIED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.
2.Id. at 27-36. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on October 22, 2017.
3.Id. at 37-40. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on June 14, 2018.
4. Otherwise known as the "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" (August 17, 1960).
5. See Joson v. Ombudsman, 784 Phil. 172, 189 (2016).
6. See rollo, p. 34.
7. See id. at 32.
8. See id. at 32 and 34.
9. See id. at 31-32.