Case Digest (G.R. No. 257358)
Facts:
The case at hand involves Atty. Moises De Guia Dalisay, Jr. as the petitioner and the Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao along with Atty. Dexter Rey T. Sumaoy as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with a complaint filed by Dalisay on April 12, 2018, against Sumaoy, who served as the City Administrator of Iligan City. The complaint alleged multiple violations, including the "Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019" and "Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code," as well as charges of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and violation of Administrative Order No. 239, Series of 2008. The allegations stemmed from Sumaoy's actions on August 1 and August 14, 2017, when he represented John Philip Aragon Burlado in a libel case before the Regional Trial Court in Initao, Misamis Oriental, while using a government vehicle and allegedly falsifying his Daily Time Record (DTR) to reflect full-time wo...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 257358)
Facts:
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Atty. Moises De Guia Dalisay, Jr. (petitioner) against Atty. Dexter Rey T. Sumaoy (private respondent), the City Administrator of Iligan City. The complaint alleged violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), among other charges.
Specific Allegations
Petitioner claimed that private respondent, on August 1 and August 14, 2017, appeared as private counsel for John Philip Aragon Burlado in a libel case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Initao, Misamis Oriental. It was alleged that private respondent used a government vehicle for this purpose, violating Section 1 of Administrative Order (AO) No. 239, Series of 2008. Additionally, petitioner accused private respondent of falsifying his Daily Time Record (DTR) for August 2017 by making it appear that he worked full-time on those dates when, in fact, he did not.
Private Respondent’s Defense
Private respondent countered that his appearance as counsel for Burlado was authorized by Iligan City Mayor Celso G. Regencia. He argued that Burlado, an employee of the City Information Office, was entitled to legal assistance from the City Government as the libel case arose from his official duties. Private respondent also presented evidence, including a Memorandum from Mayor Regencia and approved Requests to Travel for August 1 and August 14, 2017, to support his defense.
Ombudsman’s Initial Decision
The Ombudsman dismissed both the criminal and administrative charges against private respondent in a Joint Resolution dated May 16, 2019, citing insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Joint Order dated October 16, 2020.
Petitioner’s Arguments in the Petition
Petitioner argued that:
- Burlado was a job order worker and not an employee of the City Government, thus not entitled to legal assistance from government counsel.
- Even if Burlado were an employee, the libel case was personal and not related to his official capacity.
- Private respondent’s representation of Burlado constituted private practice of law, which required prior authorization under Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Issue:
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in not finding probable cause to charge private respondent with violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)