G.R. No. 219936 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Esmena

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and its Field Investigation Office (FIO) initiated administrative and criminal proceedings against respondent Aldo Badana EsmeAa, former Officer-in-Charge of the BIR RDO No. 22.
The proceedings stemmed from an anonymous letter dated 06 January 2007 that alerted the OMB of the respondent’s habitual absence from work.
Subsequent investigation revealed discrepancies in the respondent’s Daily Time Record (DTR) on 07 June 2007, wherein his attendance record was falsified despite his absence.

The OMB, acting on the evidence, issued a Complaint charging the respondent with violations including falsification of official documents and misconduct under relevant provisions (e.g., Article 171, Section 46(b) of EO No. 292, and Section 4(A)(a) of RA 6713).
The respondent was subpoenaed to file a counter-affidavit at his former office; however, he did not receive the orders because he had transferred to the BIR central office on 08 January 2010.
Despite the respondent’s non-participation, on 16 March 2011 the OMB rendered a Decision finding him guilty of Simple Dishonesty and imposed a six-month suspension from government service.
Almost concurrently, the OMB issued a Resolution in the criminal case recommending the filing of an Information for Making Untruthful Statements in a Narration of Facts under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

On 12 August 2011, the respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the administrative Decision on the ground of lack of due process, arguing that he was not validly served with the counter-affidavit orders and only received the Decision many days later.
Without waiting for a resolution of his motion, the respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA) to assail both the administrative Decision and the criminal Resolution, contending that his right to due process had been violated.

The CA, in its Decision dated 30 April 2013, reversed and set aside the assailed OMB Decision and Resolution, holding that the respondent was denied due process as he was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.
Petitioners (OMB and FIO) later submitted a Manifestation and Motion alleging that an order from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon had granted the respondent’s Omnibus Motion, rendering the CA case moot and calling for the closure of the case.
The CA allowed prior requests by granting entry of judgment on 14 February 2014, notwithstanding the pending nature of the respondent’s motion, and later, on 27 July 2015, the CA denied an Omnibus Motion for Partial Reconsideration and to Recall the Entry of Judgment, stating that its Decision had become final and executory.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, challenging the CA’s decision and its handling of the administrative processing and the criminal Resolution.
The petition raised issues on procedural due process, the timely filing of petitions for review under Rule 43, and the jurisdiction of the CA over the criminal aspect of the case.

Whether the CA erred in entertaining the petitioner’s appeal by reviewing issues in both the administrative and criminal cases despite the pending status of the respondent’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with OMB-Luzon.
Whether the CA’s reliance on procedural technicalities (i.e., the finality of the CA Decision due to no motion for reconsideration being filed by the petitioner) improperly precluded consideration of the due process violations alleged by the respondent.

Whether the respondent’s right to due process was violated as he did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to file his counter-affidavit, leading to the issuance of the OMB Decision and Resolution without his input.
Whether the CA was justified in reviewing and ruling on cases where critical administrative motions (such as the Omnibus Motion) were pending.

Whether the CA exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the criminal case resolution which recommended the filing of an Information for Making Untruthful Statements—a matter normally reserved for review by the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Whether the reversal of the criminal case Resolution, by taking cognizance of the OMB’s nullified resolution and issuing an entry of judgment, was legally sustainable given the limitations on the CA’s appellate review power.