Case Digest (G.R. No. 207926)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Col. Noel P. Mislang, G.R. No. 207926, October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Ombudsman (petitioner) investigated three complaints—filed by Cecilia S. Luna, Corporal Eduardo Barcelona, and Elena V. Rosqueta—alleging that then–Lt./Col. Noel P. Mislang (respondent), together with others, hatched a plot to assassinate Mayor Luna and ordered the killing of Corporal Rosqueta and the wounding of Corporal Barcelona. The Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to convict Governor Vicente P. Valera, but on May 9, 2011 issued a Joint Decision finding Mislang, Mauro Durwin, and Florencio Baharin guilty of grave misconduct and meting the penalty of dismissal from the service; an execution order for Mislang’s dismissal followed the same day.
Before the Ombudsman proceedings concluded, the General Court Martial (GCM) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) had earlier taken cognizance of related allegations, arraigned Mislang, and in an Order dated February 7, 2007 declared him “Not Guilty.” Mislang did not file a motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman but instead appealed directly to the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 43. The CA, in a decision dated October 15, 2012 (pen. by A.J. Cruz) and in a June 7, 2013 resolution denying reconsideration, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision on res judicata/res inter alios acta grounds, concluding that the GCM’s prior adjudication and the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the AFP and the Ombudsman gave preclusive effect to the military court’s acquittal.
The Ombudsman filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s reversal on the grounds (inter alia) that the Ombudsman properly exercised jurisdiction concurrently with...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman and the alleged omission of the assailed Joint Decision from his CA petition bar judicial review (procedural/ exhaustion/strict compliance issues)?
- Did the General Court Martial’s prior adjudication and the January 28, 2004 MOA deprive the Ombudsman of jurisdiction so that the CA correctly set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision (concurrent jurisdiction / res judicata / MOA effect)?
- Was the Ombudsman’s May 9, 2011 Joint Decision supported by substantial evidence and rendered with due process, such that the CA erred in reversing it (su...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)