SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12856. October 11, 2021.]
GLORIA L. ECHAVEZ, complainant,vs. SACP FRANCISCO L. SALOMON AND SACP ROSE SHARON C. ABILA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 October 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12856(Gloria L. Echavez v. SACP Francisco L. Salomon and SACP Rose Sharon C. Abila). — This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint Affidavit 1 dated June 8, 2020 filed by Gloria L. Echavez (Gloria), charging Senior Assistant City Prosecutors (SACP) Francisco L. Salomon (Salomon) and Rose Sharon C. Abila (Abila) with grave abuse of discretion and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2 HTcADC
The following are the factual antecedents as found in the records:
Gloria was the complainant in a perjury case against a certain Marivel Echavez (Marivel) docketed as NPS Docket No. XV-07-INV-19H-05858. 3 Gloria alleged that Marivel committed three counts of perjury when the latter continuously lied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, Counter-Affidavit, and Rejoinder-Affidavit about Gloria's family ganging up on her and beating her up. 4 However, the case was dismissed because the investigating prosecutor found no probable cause to indict Marivel for the crime of perjury. 5 Gloria then filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied through a Resolution dated February 5, 2020, which was issued and signed by herein respondents SACP Salomon and SACP Abila. 6
In the said Resolution, respondents ruled that Gloria did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that Marivel perjured herself in her SinumpaangSalaysay, Counter-Affidavit, and Rejoinder-Affidavit. 7 Moreover, the respondents noted that the case was a re-filed case, which had already been resolved by Prosecutor Dinah Myrtle M. Pacquing under I.S. No. 161-04861 through Resolution dated October 24, 2016. 8 Consequently, SACP Salomon and SACP Abila denied Gloria's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case based on Section 4.7.6.2 (b) of the Revised Manual for Prosecutors, Volume I, 2017 Edition. 9
Hence, Gloria filed the present administrative case against SACP Salomon and SACP Abila. She averred that they made "irrational reasonings and untruthful statements" in the Resolution dated February 5, 2020 so that they could dismiss the perjury case. 10 She also alleged that they perpetually harassed Gloria and her family by dismissing the complaints despite the clear presence of probable cause. 11 Essentially, Gloria claimed that SACP Salomon and SACP Abila's actions were unethical and not in accordance with the Lawyer's Code. 12
Issue
The sole issue is whether SACP Salomon and SACP Abila should be administratively sanctioned in light of their denial of Gloria's motion for reconsideration.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the administrative case against SACP Salomon and SACP Abila for lack of jurisdiction. The administrative complaint must be filed with and resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, enumerates the powers, functions, and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman. In particular, Section 15, paragraph 1 of the said law states:
Section 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 his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases. 13
Moreover, Section 16 provides that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. Additionally, Section 19 imposes upon the Ombudsman the duty to act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or discriminatory. 14
Thus, acts or omissions of public officials which are related to the performance of their functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. 15 It is the government agency that is responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people." 16
In the case at bar, Gloria seeks to hold respondents liable for acts committed in their capacity as Senior Assistant City Prosecutors. She posits that their denial of her motion for reconsideration and the subsequent dismissal of the perjury case are unreasonable, unjust, and unfair. 17 Considering that these are acts connected with SACP Salomon and SACP Abila's duties as government lawyers who are exercising their official functions as prosecutors, the present case ought to be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman which has the disciplinary authority over such persons. 18
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the administrative complaint against Senior Assistant City Prosecutors Francisco L. Salomon and Rose Sharon C. Abila for lack of jurisdiction. aScITE
SO ORDERED." (SAJ. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 8.
4.Id. at 8-9.
5.Id. at 8.
6.Id. at 8-10.
7.Id. at 9.
8.Id. at 10.
9.Id.; "x x x The investigating prosecutor may, however, grant a motion to dismiss filed by a respondent who is yet to file or has not filed his/her counter-affidavit if the motion is verified and satisfactorily establishes, among others: x x x The fact that the complaint, or one similar thereto or identical therewith, has previously been filed with the Office and has been fully adjudicated upon on the merits after due preliminary investigation proceedings; x x x"
10.Id. at 4.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13. Emphasis supplied.
14.Spouses Buffe v. Sec. Gonzalez, 797 Phil. 143, 150-151 (2016).
15.Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, 803 Phil. 85, 91 (2017).
16.Id.
17.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
18.Spouses Buffe v. Sec. Gonzalez, supra note 14.