FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234854. March 3, 2021.]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,vs. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234854 — OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitionerversus LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, respondent.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 15, 2017 Decision 2 (assailed Decision) and September 11, 2017 Resolution 3 (assailed Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141940, which modified the June 10, 2014 Consolidated Decision 4 and June 8, 2015 Consolidated Order 5 of the Office of the Ombudsman-Luzon (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-A-10-0778-L, OMB-L-A-10-0589-I, OMB-L-A-10-059-I, OMB-L-A-10-0696-J and OMB-L-A-11-0410-G.
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings. 6 However, intervention is not a matter of right, but is instead addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It may be permitted only when the statutory conditions for the right to intervene are shown. 7
Based on the Rules of Court, intervention may be allowed when the movant has legal interest in the matter in controversy. 8 Legal interest is defined as such interest that is actual, material, direct and immediate such that the party seeking intervention will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. 9 Additionally, the motion to intervene must be filed before rendition of the judgment as intervention is not an independent action but merely ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation. 10
In the assailed Resolution, the CA cited the 2010 case of Ombudsman v. Sison11(Sison) and the 2012 case of Ombudsman v. Liggayu12(Liggayu) to rule that the Ombudsman is not a proper party to intervene in the case since it is the disciplining authority or tribunal which heard the case and imposed the penalty; hence it must remain partial. 13 On this note, the CA is mistaken.
This matter is already settled in the 2008 case of Ombudsman v. Samaniego14(Samaniego) where the Court en banc categorically ruled that, even if not impleaded as a party in the proceedings, the Ombudsman has legal interest to intervene and defend its ruling in administrative cases before the CA — its interest proceeding from its duty to act as a champion of the people and to preserve the integrity of public service. 15 The ruling in Samaniego has been upheld in the 2013 case of Ombudsman v. De Chavez16(De Chavez) and the 2015 case of Ombudsman v. Quimbo17(Quimbo) which the Ombudsman cites in support of its instant petition. 18
The seeming conflict between Samaniego, Chavez, and Quimbo on one hand, and Sison and Liggayu on the other, has already been resolved in the 2017 case of Ombudsman v. Gutierrez19(Gutierrez), which affirmed Samaniego as the prevailing doctrine. The Court, in Gutierrez, clarified that under the circumstances obtaining in the cases that seemingly strayed from Samaniego, the CA had a valid reason for disallowing the Ombudsman to participate in those cases because the latter only moved for intervention after the CA already rendered judgment and by that time, intervention was no longer warranted. 20 In addition, it should be pointed out that Liggayu and Sison were both decided by a Division of the Court; hence, none of these cases, under Section 4 (3), Article VII of the Constitution, 21 has sufficient doctrinal force to modify, much less overturn, the pronouncement in Samaniego. 22
In light of the clarification made in Gutierrez, it should now be considered as settled doctrine that the Ombudsman has legal standing to intervene in appeals from its rulings in administrative cases, provided that the Ombudsman moves for intervention before rendition of judgment — otherwise, the Court may deny its motion, as in Sison and Liggayu. 23
In the present case, while the CA erred in ruling that the Ombudsman is not the appropriate party to intervene in the case, it nevertheless correctly denied the Ombudsman's intervention for having been filed out of time. As the CA noted, the Omnibus Motion to Intervene was filed on April 24, 2017 or after the CA had already rendered the assailed Decision on March 15, 2017, despite the Ombudsman being served a copy of the petition pursuant to Rule 43. 24 Consequently, the present petition must be denied, and since intervention has been disallowed, there is no longer any need to delve into the merits of the substantive arguments raised by the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., no part; Perlas-Bernabe, J., additional Member per raffle dated January 20, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-28.
2.Id. at 107-118, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court).
3.Id. at 121-127.
4.Id. at 35-90. Penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer Ma. Czarina Castro-Altares, reviewed by Reviewing GIPO III Margie G. Fernandez-Calpatura, and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
5.Id. at 91-105.
6.Office of the Ombudsman v. Gutierrez, 811 Phil. 389, 407 (2017).
7.Id.
8.See RULES OF COURT, Rule 19, Secs. 1 and 2.
9.Office of the Ombudsman v. Vitriolo, G.R. No. 237582, June 3, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65303>, citing Magsaysay-Labrador v. CA, 259 Phil. 748, 753-754 (1989).
10.Id., citing Ongco v. Dalisay, 691 Phil. 462 (2012).
11. 626 Phil. 598 (2010).
12. 688 Phil. 443 (2012).
13.Rollo, pp. 122-124.
14. G.R. No. 175573, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 567.
15.Id. at 579; see also Office of the Ombudsman v. Bongais, G.R. No. 226405, 873 SCRA 276, 287.
16. 713 Phil. 211 (2013).
17. 755 Phil. 41 (2015).
18.Rollo, p. 21.
19.Supra note 6.
20.Id. at 410.
21. CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Sec. 4 (3) provides:
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. (Underscoring supplied)
22.Office of the Ombudsman v. Chipoco, G.R. Nos. 231345 & 232406, August 19, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65550>.
23.Office of the Ombudsman v. Bongais, supra note 15, at 292.
24.Rollo, p. 124.