Case Digest (G.R. No. 164250)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164250)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman and Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio, in his capacity as Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioners, vs. Atty. Gil A. Valera and Court of Appeals (Special First Division), Respondents, G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Respondent Atty. Gil A. Valera was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on July 13, 2001 and was assigned to the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group. On July 28 and August 20, 2003, sworn complaints (one by PNP‑CIDG Director Eduardo S. Matillano and another earlier by Atty. Adolfo Casareno) were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Valera of, among other things, compromising a government collection case (Civil Case No. 01‑102504 against Steel Asia Manufacturing Corp.) without proper authority, thereby causing alleged prejudice to the government and violating provisions of R.A. No. 3019, the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), various Executive Orders, and R.A. No. 6713; the complaints also alleged administrative offenses of grave misconduct and serious irregularity.
The complaints were docketed as three separate matters before the Ombudsman (OMB‑C‑C‑02‑0568‑I; OMB‑C‑C‑03‑0547‑J; OMB‑C‑A‑0379‑J). On November 12, 2003 Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo issued a memorandum inhibiting himself from these cases and directed Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa‑Ignacio to act "in his stead and place" in the referenced matters. Following investigation, petitioner Villa‑Ignacio, acting in the administrative case OMB‑C‑A‑0379‑J, issued an Order dated March 17, 2004 placing Valera under preventive suspension for six months without pay, finding that Valera had entered into a compromise with Steel Asia without the Commissioner of Customs’ or Secretary of Finance’s approval in violation of Section 2316 TCCP and that the evidence of guilt was strong under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
Valera moved for reconsideration, asserting denial of due process because he had already filed a counter‑affidavit on November 6, 2003; Villa‑Ignacio denied reconsideration by Order dated April 5, 2004, stating the counter‑affidavit did not show authority for Valera’s compromise agreement. Valera filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the March 17, 2004 suspension order and to enjoin implementation; the CA heard oral arguments and issued a temporary restraining order on April 16, 2004. On June 25, 2004 the CA (Special First Division) rendered a decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 83091 setting aside the March 17, 2004 preventive suspension order and directing Villa‑Ignacio to desist from further action in OMB‑C‑A‑03‑0379‑J, principally ruling that the Special Prosecutor lacked authority to issue preventive suspension orders and that Ombudsman Marcelo’s inhibition memorandum could not vest such authority in the Special Prosecutor.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA decision; the petition contended the Ombudsman validly delegated authority to the Special Prosecutor under Section 11(4)(c) and that the evidence of guilt against Valera was strong. The CA’s decision was the subject of the present Supreme Court En Banc review. Subsequent to the CA decision, the administrative case was reassigned to the Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO, which rendered an administrative decision finding Valera guilty of grave misconduct and ordering dismissal; that administrative judgment and its appellate review are separately noted and a related petition (G.R. No. 167278) was pending at the Court at the time of this decision.
Issues:
- Does the Special Prosecutor have authority to issue a preventive suspension order in an administrative case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman?
- If not, was the evidence of guilt against respondent Valera sufficiently strong to justify preventive suspension under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770?
- Should respondent Valera’s petition before the Court of Appeals have been dismissed for forum shopping?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)