THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231972. July 24, 2017.]
CARLOS B. DE JESUS, petitioner,vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, JOSELITO NATHANIEL DIAZ, CLAUDETTE D.C. CASTILLO, OPHELIA L. RADOVAN AND RENE B. CATLY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2017, which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 231972 (CARLOS B. DE JESUS, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, JOSELITO NATHANIEL DIAZ, CLAUDETTE D.C. CASTILLO, OPHELIA L. RADOVAN and RENE B. CATLY, Respondents). — The petitioner brought a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Joselito Nathaniel I. Diaz, Claudette D.C. Castillo, Ophelia L. Radovan and Rene B. Catly, all employees of the Provincial Office (PO) in Oriental Mindoro of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), accusing them of violating Section 3 (e) and Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, and the ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw, docketed as OMB-L-C-16-0104. He also charged them with grave misconduct and a violation of Section 5 (a), Section 5 (c) and Section 5 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713, 1 docketed as OMB-L-A-16-0108. 2
The petitioner alleged that he was the attorney-in-fact of Carolina B. de Jesus, 3 his mother, who had filed a petition for nullification of coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in Regional Office No. IV-B of the DAR; 4 that when he inquired on the status of the petition, he was informed, by the letter dated May 25, 2015, that his petition had been endorsed to the PO of the DAR in Oriental Mindoro on September 10, 2014; 5 and that despite the lapse of 15 days from receipt of the indorsement, the respondents did not act on the petition; that his mother had filed an ejectment complaint in the Municipal Trial Court of Pola (MTC) against several individuals for allegedly illegally occupying her property; that respondent Catly, who was not a lawyer, helped the occupants in drafting their answer, stating that the occupants were the tenants of the petitioner's mother; that the MTC ordered the respondents to determine the relationship of the parties; and that despite the lapse of 15 days, the respondents did not act on the order of the MTC. 6
In response, the respondents sought the dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner, alleging that the petition for nullification was not an ordinary request that could be acted upon within 15 days because it required thorough investigation; that the appearance of respondent Catly was within his duties as a Legal Officer of the DAR; and that the certification ordered by the MTC was already issued.
In its decision issued on November 3, 2016, 7 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed both the criminal complaint and the administrative complaint for lack of probable cause and for lack of substantial evidence to sustain the charges, ruling that there was no evidence that the delay had been motivated by a corrupt intention; that the petitioner did not adduce the facts that would constitute the elements of the crimes charged; and that the respondents did not intentionally disregard the rules in order to warrant their being found guilty of grave misconduct.
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman on February 13, 2017. 8
Hence, the petitioner has sought recourse in this Court by petition for certiorari, averring that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in issuing the orders of dismissal considering that there were sufficient pieces of evidence that warranted the indictment of the respondents.
Ruling of the Court
After a judicious review, the Court RESOLVES TO DISMISS the petition for certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that respondent Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, in issuing the assailed orders, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
As a rule, the courts do not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of her discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. In the determination of probable cause, the Ombudsman's discretion prevails over judicial discretion. 9 It is only when the Ombudsman's action is tainted with grave abuse of discretion will the Court intervene with the conduct of the Ombudsman's executive function.
The petition for certiorari did not show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman to warrant judicial intervention necessitating the application of the rule rather than the exception.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
2.Rollo, pp. 100-104.
3.Id. at 33-34.
4.Id. at 35-38.
5.Id. at 46.
6.Id. at 20-22.
7.Id. at 109-116.
8.Id. at 118-125.
9.Schroeder v. Saldevar, G.R. No. 163656, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 624, 629.