Trovela v. Santos-Madamba

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11920. February 21, 2018.]

MANUEL B. TROVELA, complainant, vs. MARIA BENET T. SANTOS-MADAMBA, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR OF PASIG CITY; LUTHER T. PONPON, REVIEWING PROSECUTOR OF PASIG CITY; JACINTO G. ANG, CITY PROSECUTOR OF PASIG CITY; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, FORMER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND HON. VITALIANO AGUIRRE II, CURRENT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 21, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 11920 (MANUEL B. TROVELA, Complainant, v. MARIA BENET T. SANTOS-MADAMBA, Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig City; LUTHER T. PONPON, Reviewing Prosecutor of Pasig City; JACINTO G. ANG, City Prosecutor of Pasig City; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, Former Secretary, Department of Justice; and HON. VITALIANO AGUIRRE II, Current Secretary, Department of Justice, Respondents.) — The complainant has brought a disbarment complaint against Assistant Prosecutor Maria Benet T. Santos-Madamba of Pasig City for issuing the resolution dated October 17, 2011 recommending the dismissal for lack of probable cause of his complaint against Carlos Pedro C. Salonga and Atty. Rafael A.L. Aquino for alleged falsification by a private individual and alleged use of falsified documents as defined and punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code; and against Reviewing Prosecutor Luther T. Ponpon and City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang, also of Pasig City, for approving the recommendation of dismissal. CAIHTE

The complainant further seeks the disbarment of former Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima and former Secretary of Justice Vitaliano Aguirre II for their failure to act on his appeal of the dismissal.

Antecedents

On June 22, 2011, the complainant criminally charged Salonga and Atty. Aquino with falsification by a private individual and use of falsified documents as defined and punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In his complaint-affidavit, 1 he alleged that he had filed against Sky Cable a complaint for illegal dismissal with monetary claim in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); that the position paper of Sky Cable filed during the arbitration proceedings had been verified by Salonga and prepared by Atty. Aquino; that the attachments submitted by Sky Cable contained false statements with the intent to destroy his theory of the case; 2 and that the falsified documents were attributable to Salonga and Atty. Aquino.

In her resolution dated October 17, 2011, 3 Investigating Prosecutor Santos-Madamba found no probable cause to charge Salonga and Atty. Aquino, and recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

Reviewing Prosecutor Ponpon and City Prosecutor Ang approved the recommendation of dismissal on October 17, 2011.

The complainant then appealed the dismissal of October 17, 2011, 4 but despite his manifestation and motions for immediate resolution, both Secretary De Lima and Secretary Aguirre did not resolve the appeal until this time.

Hence, the complainant initiated disbarment against the respondents, stating as follows:

I.

IN NOT FINDING CAUSE IN THE CASE, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE OCCPC PROSECUTORS MERELY GLOSSED OVER THE DOCUMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO PROVE [MY] CHARGES WITHOUT CLOSELY EXAMINING THEM AND RECKLESSLY IGNORED THE APPLICATION OF RELEVANT LAWS AND/OR JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE LONG ESTABLISHED PRESUMPTION ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF FALSIFICATION ON THE PART OF ANYONE WHO IS IN POSSESSION THEREOF AND/OR WHO USED THE SAME, AMONG OTHERS. 5

II.

THUS, WHEN THE DOJ WHICH WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RESPONDENT DE LIMA HAD NOT TAKEN ACTION ON MY PETITION FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, DESPITE BEING THE DOJ SECRETARY THEN, IT INDICATES HER LACK OF RESOLVE TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE AND GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT HER OFFICE IS BEING USED TO(sic)OR PROSTITUTED FOR OTHER ENDS. 6 DETACa

III.

IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT DE LIMA, DESPITE BEING THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THEN, TOTALLY IGNORED THE PRESENCE OF THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AND OTHER ANOMALOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PERJURY AND UNJUST JUDGMENT CASES, THE MANIPULATIVESCHEMES EMPLOYED BY SKY CABLE IN CERTAIN OF ITS PLEADINGS (sic) AND THE INORDINATE DELAYS IN THE OTHER RELATED CASES. 7

IV.

ABOVE ALL, RESPONDENT DE LIMA TOOK ACTION ON THE ESTAFA CASE, ALBEIT UNDER DUBIOUSCIRCUMSTANCES, AHEAD OF THE OTHER CASES WITHOUT CONSOLIDATING THEM DESPITE THAT ALL INDICATIONS CLEARLY POINT TO SUCH CONSOLIDATION. 8

V.

UNDER THE PREMISES, THEREFORE, COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC DICTATE THAT RESPONDENT AGUIRRE, BEING THE NEW DOJ SECRETARY WHO REPLACED RESPONDENT DE LIMA, HAS BECOME EQUALLY LIABLE TO THE SAME DEGREE AS HER ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH HE TOOK NO ACTION ON MY INCESSANT PLEADINGS WAS RELATIVELY SHORTER. 9

VI.

THAT SAID, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT ONLY RENEGED ON THEIR SWORNDUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE LAND, BASICALLY AS LAWYERS AND AS PROSECUTORS OR DISPENSERS OF JUSTICE, WHICH COMPROMISED THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BUT THEY ALSO COMMITTED GROSS VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN LAWS THEMSELVES. 10

Should the respondents be administratively disciplined based on the allegations of the complaint?

Ruling of the Court

We dismiss the administrative complaint against the respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court has recently observed in Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay: 11

Republic Act No. 6770 (R.A. No. 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 15, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 6770 provides:

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.

The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any government official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the government agency 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." In Samson v. Restrivera, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman 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.

In Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales, the Court held that the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties. In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against Atty. Macatangay, Atty. Zerna, Atty. Ronquillo, and Atty. Buenaflor, which include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2) failure to evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of CSC Orders and Resolutions, all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no jurisdiction over Alicias' complaint. These are acts or omissions connected with their duties as government lawyers exercising official functions in the CSC and within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the Office of the Ombudsman.

In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant insists that Assistant City Prosecutor Santos-Madamba, Reviewing Prosecutor Ponpon and City Prosecutor Ang be declared to have gravely abused their discretion in issuing the October 17, 2011 resolution; and that Secretary De Lima and Secretary Aguirre be pronounced guilty of gross neglect in not timely resolving his petition for review. He specifically pleads that the Court renders judgment —

1. Finding prima facie cases against them for violation of Art. 208 of the RPC and R.A. No. 3019, as amended, a.k.a. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and referring the matter to the appropriate governmental agency for the prosecution thereof; ATICcS

2. Imposing appropriate disciplinary action against them, including their disbarment and/or removal from office, for gross violation of the canons of the legal profession or for unprofessional conduct that casts serious doubt upon their mental and moral fitness as members of the Bar and as prosecutors;

3. Awarding costs of suit hereof in such amounts as may be commensurate with the extent and degree of misconduct committed by each of them and recommending that I be awarded corresponding actual, as well as moral, exemplary and compensatory damages; and

4. Providing such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises. 12

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). 13 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.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the disbarment complaint filed against all the respondents for lack of jurisdiction. TIADCc

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 34-47.

2.Id. at 48-57.

3.Id. at 58-63.

4.Id. at 64-78.

5.Id. at 11-12 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

6.Id. at 13 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

7.Id. at 14-15 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

8.Id. at 17 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

9.Id. at 19-20 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

10.Id. at 20 (bold underscoring is part of the original).

11. A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017.

12.Rollo, p. 29.

13. See also Barillo v. Gervasio, G.R. No. 155088, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 561; Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga, G.R. No. 164316, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 631; Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 798; Balbastro v. Junio, G.R. No. 154678, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 680; Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas, G.R. No. 158672, August 7, 2007, 529 SCRA 245; Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago, G.R. No. 161098, September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 305.