FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10895. June 23, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5251]
RONNIE F. FAULVE, complainant,vs. ATTY. OSCAR T. CO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10895 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5251] — RONNIE F. FAULVE, complainant,versus ATTY. OSCAR T. CO, respondent.
After a careful review of the records and evidence presented by the parties, the Court adopts the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as well as its recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Oscar T. Co (respondent), for lack of jurisdiction.
In Alicias v. Macatangay1(Alicias) and Trovela v. Robles2(Trovela), the Court held: that the accountability of lawyers performing or discharging their official duties as lawyers of the Government should be distinguished from their accountability as members of the Philippine Bar; and that the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate government lawyers charged with administrative offenses involving the performance of their official duties.
In particular, Trovela involved a disbarment complaint against respondents therein who were prosecutors, in connection with the resolution they issued in the performance of their duties. The following pronouncements in Trovela are applicable to the present case:
Considering that the acts being complained against undoubtedly arose from the performance or discharge of official duties on the part of respondents Prosecutor Santos-Madamba, Prosecutor Ponpon and City Prosecutor Ang, we declare and hold that the authority to discipline said respondents exclusively pertained to former Secretary Aguirre, their superior; and in the case of Secretary De Lima and Secretary Aguirre, the authority to discipline belonged to the President. In either case, the authority could also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman, which had disciplinary jurisdiction over them as public officials pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). The Court should not assert any authority over all the respondents because their accountability as officials performing or discharging their official duties is always to be differentiated from their accountability as members of the Philippine Bar. 3
Here, the allegations against respondent arose from the performance and discharge of his official duties as Acting Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite. Following Trovela, the authority to discipline respondent is lodged with his superior, i.e., the Secretary of Justice, or the Office of the Ombudsman, which also exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over prosecutors as public officials in accordance with Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which provides in part: CAIHTE
Section 15. Powers, Function 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 of investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases.
As the Court explained in Alicias, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman — as the government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government officials in every case where the evidence warrants — encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. Consequently, acts or omissions of public officials relating to the performance of their functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. 4
At this juncture, it should be noted that the Court had recently ruled on a disbarment complaint also filed by herein complainant Ronnie F. Faulve against another prosecutor. 5 The Court similarly dismissed the same for lack of jurisdiction as it also covered allegations arising from the performance of official duties of respondent therein as city prosecutor. As discussed herein, the present complaint suffers the same fate.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against ATTY. OSCAR T. CO is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
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. 803 Phil. 85 (2017).
2. A.C. 11920, February 21, 2018. (Unsigned Resolution)
3.Id.
4.Supra note 1, at 91.
5. See Faulve v. Catacutan-Villarin, A.C. 11270, July 15, 2020. (Unsigned Resolution)