Facts:

The case involves Artex Development Co., Inc. (hereafter "Artex") as the petitioner and the Office of the Ombudsman and several public officers of the City of Manila as respondents: Atty. Marissa E. Timones, Atty. Luis Y. Del Mundo, Jr., Erlinda O. Marteja, and Elimar N. Jose. Artex filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman on April 14, 2010, alleging that the aforementioned public officers had conspired to give undue benefits to a winning bidder, V.N. International Development Corporation (referred to as "VN"), pertaining to their parcels of land located in Binondo, Manila. These properties, valued at approximately Php 99,778,000.00, were subjected to auction after Artex failed to pay real estate taxes. The auction bids commenced on May 29, 2008, culminating in an unconscionably low winning bid of Php 9,637,219.81 for the properties. The complaint highlighted actions by the respond

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On April 14, 2010, Artex Development Co., Inc. ("Artex") filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against certain public officers of the City of Manila.
• The respondents included:
• Atty. Marissa E. Timones – Register of Deeds;
• Atty. Luis Y. Del Mundo, Jr. – Legal Officer;
• Erlinda O. Marteja – Chairman of the Auction Committee (Office of the City Treasurer); and
• Elimar N. Jose – Member-Secretary of the Auction Committee (Office of the City Treasurer).

Subject Matter and Alleged Properties

• Artex claimed ownership of two parcels of land measuring a total of 451.20 square meters, located in Binondo, Manila, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 127247.
• The properties included an eight-storey building and various machineries, with an appraised value of Php99,778,000.00 as of June 20, 2009.
• The properties had been levied for failure to pay real estate taxes, with warrants of levy issued on November 26, 2007, and May 29, 2008.

Allegations by Artex

• Artex alleged that the respondents, acting in conspiracy, violated relevant laws and regulations in the auction sale of its properties and in the issuance of a new title to the winning bidder, V.N. International Development Corporation ("VN").
• Specific allegations included:
• The acceptance of an unconscionably low bid for the properties (Php9,637,219.81).
• An unjustified refusal to entertain Artex’s attempts to redeem the properties.
• Overtures by respondents to request money and impose unnecessary demands.
• The imposition of undue requirements on Artex, such as extending its corporate term, cancelling the mortgage on the properties, and producing extraneous documents (e.g., proofs unrelated to the actual redemption process).
• A pivotal incident involved representatives of Artex attempting to redeem the property on June 30, 2008, only to be rebuffed when their payment accompanied by a secretary’s certificate (containing a contested community tax certificate or CTC) was questioned as potentially inauthentic.
• Respondent statements and actions allegedly aimed to preclude the redemption:
• An indication by respondent Jose to forego redemption and proceed with the sale.
• The continued issuance of a certificate of non-redemption on June 15, 2009, despite Artex being within its redemption period.
• Further, Artex accused Atty. Timones, in collusion with the other respondents, of manipulating the record of TCT No. 127247 by making it appear missing and subsequently issuing a new title to VN without completing the final deed of conveyance.
• Artex’s underlying claim was that the respondents intentionally obstructed its right to redeem the properties, thereby securing improper benefits for VN.

The Ombudsman’s Findings

• The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, holding that there was insufficient basis under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) to prosecute the respondents.
• Key points in the Ombudsman’s evaluation included:
• The bid amount was determined based on the delinquent taxes, interest, and sale expenses, not the fair market value, thus not “grossly unconscionable.”
• The action by Atty. Del Mundo in questioning the validity of the CTC was a proper application of Section 163 of the Local Government Code.
• Despite the challenge to the CTC, redemption was still legally possible either by tendering the payment directly or consigning it with the court.
• The issuance of the certificate of non-redemption by respondents Jose and Marteja was consistent with the one-year redemption period as stipulated (with the auction held on May 29, 2008, limiting the redemption window until May 29, 2009).
• Allegations against Atty. Timones regarding misuse of certification practices and the absence of a final deed of conveyance were found speculative and insufficient for criminal liability.
• The Ombudsman emphasized that public officers are presumed to act in good faith and that Artex’s evidence was too scant to establish that the respondents acted with malice, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

The Petition Before the Court

• Artex elevated the case by seeking certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion.
• The petition contended that the respondents deliberately delayed and obstructed the redemption process out of a common sinister design, thereby giving undue benefit to VN.
• Artex’s petition focused on the alleged failure by the respondents to consider (or properly integrate) various actions and missteps that cumulatively impeded its right to redeem the property.

Issue:

The main issue raised in this petition is whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when dismissing Artex’s complaint against the respondents.

• Whether the actions of the respondent public officers—namely, the alleged questioning of the validity of the CTC, the issuance of a certificate of non-redemption before the expiration of the redemption period, and the issuance of a new TCT to VN without the final deed of conveyance—amount to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
• Whether the Ombudsman’s reliance on a prima facie assessment (in place of establishing a higher quantum of evidence) in determining the absence of probable cause was legally tenable.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)