G.R. No. 225204-05 - Asignado vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Title: Asignado vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Case: G.R. No. 225204-05

Decision Date: Mar 29, 2023

Former BFPMBAI officers accused Fire Chief Romero of halting remittances, alleging graft and coercion. Ombudsman dismissed charges; SC upheld, citing no abuse of discretion.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225204-05)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case arises from an original Petition for Certiorari filed directly before the Supreme Court by petitioners – former Fire Directors Rogelio F. Asignado (Ret.), Jose E. Collado (Ret.), and Fire Inspector Ernesto S. Pagdanganan – challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s rulings.

The rulings in question were the Joint Resolution dated June 20, 2014 and the Joint Order dated December 21, 2015, which dismissed the criminal and administrative charges against private respondent Fire Chief Superintendent (F/CSupt.) Carlito S. Romero.

The controversy stems from allegations regarding the withholding of remittances of payroll deductions collected from Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) personnel for the benefit of the BFPMBAI (BFP Mutual Aid & Beneficiary Association, Inc.).

Factual Allegations and Disputed Transactions

Petitioners, along with nine other complainants, alleged that they were bona fide officers and members of the BFPMBAI.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been entered into on March 6, 2006 between the BFPMBAI and the BFP, whereby the Bureau would periodically deduct and remit contributions from the payroll of its personnel.

The remittances were duly processed until February 2013, when it was discovered that the deductions for January 2013 had not been remitted.

In response, F/Dir. Collado sent formal letters to private respondent, then serving as BFP Officer-in-Charge, demanding the immediate release of the withheld funds.

On February 8, 2013, private respondent issued a memorandum ordering the temporary stoppage of the remittances pending resolution of a legal controversy over the legitimate composition of the BFPMBAI Board of Trustees.

The legal controversy originated from the 6th BFPMBAI General Membership Meeting held on June 30, 2012, which was marred by irregularities—only 167 members were present while votes of over 2,800 absentee members were allegedly cast by the presiding officer in favor of private respondent and his allies.

Petitioners claimed that during meetings, the private respondent conditionally promised the release of the remittances only if he would be installed as the chairman and if the ousted trustees were reinstated, thereby allegedly using intimidation and compulsion.

Subsequently, BFPMBAI Board of Trustees’ Resolution No. 13-04 was issued on March 8, 2013, accepting the resignation of one trustee and electing private respondent as his replacement—a resolution the petitioners contend was forced upon them under duress.

As of March 27, 2013, the accumulated unpaid remittances amounted to approximately ₱18.6 million, with petitioners alleging that the withholding of these funds caused financial harm to the association by suspending lending operations and other member benefits.

The petitioners charged private respondent with violations under Section 3(e) and 3(f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act) and with Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Private Respondent’s Version and Alternative Actions

In his Counter-Affidavit, private respondent acknowledged his role as BFP’s Officer-in-Charge and contended that he became aware that petitioners had improperly assumed control over BFPMBAI amid the disputed election results.

He explained that his memorandum to suspend the remittance was issued due to the ongoing electoral controversy and as a precaution to safeguard the association’s funds.

Private respondent maintained that he acted within his authority, held a meeting with representatives of Fortune Life Insurance to ensure uninterrupted insurance claims for BFPMBAI members, and subsequently filed a Complaint-in-Interpleader against the contending groups to resolve which set of trustees was legitimately entitled to the remittances.

He asserted that his actions were devoid of malice or intent to secure any personal benefit.

Proceedings Before the Office of the Ombudsman

Public respondent (the Office of the Ombudsman), after reviewing the submissions (including position papers and counter-affidavits), issued a Joint Resolution on June 20, 2014 dismissing both the criminal and administrative charges against private respondent.

The rationale provided hinged on the unresolved election controversy—highlighting the absence of due certification, conflicting claims regarding the BFPMBAI Board of Trustees, and the appropriateness of filing a Complaint-in-Interpleader, which indicated that the proper resolution should be sought through judicial intervention.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing on several grounds including that private respondent did not follow proper intra-corporate procedures and that the remittances were already property of the association members.

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Joint Order dated December 21, 2015.

Aggrieved by these rulings, petitioners directly sought certiorari before the Supreme Court to challenge what they described as grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent.

Central Allegations Leading to the Certiorari Petition

Petitioners contend that public respondent, by dismissing the criminal charges, acted with grave abuse of discretion, particularly by failing to hold private respondent accountable for alleged acts of intimidation and improper disposition of BFPMBAI funds.

They also raised concerns regarding the alleged influence and partiality of former Deputy Ombudsman Cyril E. Ramos, although these assertions were not substantiated by concrete evidence in the record.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issue

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review and interfere with the dismissal of both the administrative and criminal charges, given that the administrative component has reached finality and the proper recourse for it is a separate petition.

Whether the proper remedy under Rule 65 (certiorari) is applicable to the criminal aspect of the case while distinguishing it from remedies available under Rule 43 for administrative disputes.

Substantive Issue on Grave Abuse of Discretion

Whether public respondent (the Office of the Ombudsman) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal charges against private respondent by concluding that there was no probable cause for the alleged violations under Section 3(e) and 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019 and for Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the RPC.

Whether the findings and actions of private respondent in suspending the remittance of BFPMBAI funds were legally justified under the circumstances of a disputed election and did not amount to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Legal Principles and Jurisprudence

The determination of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman is granted wide latitude under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, thereby limiting judicial interference unless there is a showing of manifest arbitrariness or gross abuse of discretion.

Jurisprudence (e.g., Casing v. Ombudsman, Tupaz v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman) underscores that bad faith for purposes of a criminal charge must be more than mere error in judgment; it must involve a clear intent to cause harm or secure an unwarranted benefit.

Application to the Present Case

The Court observed that private respondent’s order to suspend the payment of remittances was a cautious administrative measure in view of the disputed legitimacy of the BFPMBAI Board of Trustees—a matter already pending judicial resolution via the Complaint-in-Interpleader.

There was no concrete evidence showing manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence on the part of the private respondent.

The financial repercussions alleged by petitioners (e.g., suspension of lending operations and potential liabilities) were not clearly attributable to wrongful or malicious conduct by private respondent.

The Court’s review reaffirmed that under the established legal framework, mere disagreement with an administrative finding does not suffice to sustain a claim of grave abuse of discretion.

Emphasis on Separation of Powers

The decision reinforces the doctrine that the judiciary must generally refrain from interfering with the OMB’s exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion unless an unequivocal abuse is clearly demonstrated.

The proper procedural remedies available through Rule 65 (for criminal cases) and Rule 43 (for administrative charges) must be correctly utilized by aggrieved parties, underscoring the need for pr

...continue reading

Unlock Full Case Digest

END