Facts:
The respondent in this case was
Efren Bongais, Housing and Homesite Regulation Officer IV of the City Housing and Settlements Office, Calamba City. On September 30, 2010, the National Bureau of Investigation filed a Letter-Complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman charging Bongais with grave misconduct and dishonesty for his alleged role in the loss and subsequent irregular disposition of the owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-44387, originally issued in the name of Ferdinand Noguera. Records showed that the City of Calamba had expropriated the parcel covered by the subject title in 2002 and that the duplicate title was placed under Bongais’s custody, who executed an
Affidavit of Loss on May 3, 2005 and caused its annotation with the Register of Deeds on May 4, 2005. An
Affidavit of Recovery was later recorded in the Register of Deeds, annotations reflected in 2007, and the original title was cancelled in favor of TCT No. T-708861 issued in the name of
Technoasia Airconditioning Refrigeration, Inc., which subsequently sold the property to spouses Reuel Rene and Elizabeth Miravite; the latter used the property as collateral for a loan from BPI Family Bank, a transaction later questioned by the bank. Bongais filed a counter-affidavit denying participation in any fraud and asserting that he exercised due diligence in custody of the title. The
Ombudsman rendered a Decision dated September 16, 2014 finding Bongais guilty of
Grave Misconduct for gross neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal; its denial of Bongais’s motion for reconsideration was embodied in an Order dated January 12, 2015. Bongais filed a Petition for Review under
Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated April 7, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 139835, granted the petition and modified the Ombudsman’s decision, finding Bongais guilty only of
Simple Neglect of Duty and imposing six months’ suspension. The Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion to Intervene on May 2, 2016 which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated July 26, 2016. The Ombudsman then filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the
Office of the Ombudsman’s Omnibus Motion to Intervene in CA-G.R. SP No. 139835? Did the
Ombudsman possess the timely and cognizable
legal interest under
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court to intervene before rendition of judgment in the Court of Appeals?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: