G.R. No. 164678 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Castro

A complaint for violation of the Social Security Act of 1997 was filed by Charito C. Ocampo against spouses Salvador and Ethel Gonzales of Audionet Trading.
The complaint was initially handled by the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Following a preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Victor C. Laborte recommended, in a resolution dated August 7, 2001, that an information be filed against the spouses for non-remittance of SSS premiums.
An information was filed in court on September 28, 2001.

On October 10, 2001, the spouses Gonzales filed a motion for reconsideration of Laborte’s resolution before the Office of the City Prosecutor, doing so without leave of court.
On November 7, 2001, respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro filed a Comment on the said motion, recommending the dismissal of the complaint.
Ocampo contended that Castro’s filing of a comment after an information had already been filed was irregular and inappropriate, as the court’s filing of the information signaled that the authority over the case had shifted.
Ocampo further alleged that once an information is filed, any further action on a motion for reconsideration should cease unless leave of court is secured, thus raising a jurisdictional issue.

Based on the above irregularity, Ocampo filed an administrative complaint against Castro, charging her with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Castro defended her action by stating that on October 30, 2001, she was ordered by Assistant City Prosecutor Oscar Capacio (Chief of the Review and Reconsideration Section) to reinvestigate the case.
After reviewing the records and documentary evidence, Castro recommended dismissal of the complaint, a decision which she submitted to Capacio and subsequently to City Prosecutor Jose Pedrosa for approval.
Castro argued that, under Section 56 of the Manual for Prosecutors, filing a motion for reconsideration is an inherent part of due process in a preliminary investigation, and that a comment on such a motion, even if filed without court leave, was within the scope of her supervisory functions.

On April 4, 2003, the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Castro guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing a six-month suspension without pay.
The Ombudsman’s rationale was that once an information had been filed, the Office of the City Prosecutor no longer had jurisdiction over the complaint; hence Castro should not have acted without securing leave of court.
Ocampo’s administrative complaint was pursued on the ground of Castro’s alleged jurisdictional overreach.
Castro contended that her actions were merely proper executory responses to orders from her superiors and were a regular part of her duties.

The Court of Appeals, in its July 23, 2004 decision, annulled the Ombudsman's ruling, holding that the power of the Regional or City Prosecutor extends even after an information is filed, permitting them to review and, if necessary, reverse prior actions.
The appellate decision further held that Castro’s comment and recommendation were duly reviewed by her superiors (Capacio and Pedrosa) and thus fell within her regular performance of duty.
The trial judge had notified all parties and reviewed the comment properly, with spouses Gonzales even moving for the dismissal of the case before the trial court.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that Castro’s actions did not amount to gross misconduct and that no particular law had been breached by her conduct.

Whether Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro usurped the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing a comment on the motion for reconsideration once an information had already been filed.
Whether the filing of a recommending comment without securing prior leave of court was proper under the applicable jurisdictional rules and procedural due process.

Whether the right to a full and fair preliminary investigation, including the right to file a motion for reconsideration as part of due process, was affected by the filing of the information.
Whether Castro’s actions, being in adherence to the orders of her superiors and conforming to the Manual for Prosecutors and the relevant DOJ Circular provisions, were justified.
Whether the alleged irregularity in filing the comment, post the court’s receipt of the information, warranted an administrative sanction against Castro.