G.R. No. 248929 - People vs. Delos Santos, Jr.

Petitioner: Poro Exim Corporation, represented by Jaime Vicente, an authorized importer operating within the Poro Point Freeport Zone (PPFZ).
Respondent: Felix S. Racadio, who holds the positions of Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC), a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC) fully owned by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).

Petitioner filed a Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging respondent with multiple offenses including:

Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Abuse of authority and grave misconduct.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and oppression.
Violation of Section 5(c) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).

Unduly delaying the approval of import permits for a shipment of over 200 units of vehicles, equipment, and parts.
Issuance of a show-cause order (SCO) and an initial investigation report (IIR) without citing specific legal provisions.
Implementing a new policy without proper Board approval, thus, adversely affecting petitioner’s import business.
Failing to act with the requisite promptness and transparency despite petitioner’s repeated pleas and the economic ramifications of the delay.

PPMC is established under the Corporation Code and serves as the operating arm of the BCDA managing the Poro Point Freeport Zone, created under RA 7227 (as amended by RA 9400).
The Comptroller and Ombudsman’s jurisdiction concerns:

The Ombudsman dismissed the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that its authority over GOCCs is limited to those with an original charter, as interpreted from Article XI, Section 13 (2) of the Constitution in Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman.
Respondent defended that the referral of large-volume import applications to the Board of Directors and his decision not to act unilaterally were measures taken in exercising prudence given the unprecedented nature of the applications.

The Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on April 2, 2018, dismissing the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
A subsequent Joint Order on April 5, 2019, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner then elevated the matter via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman exceeded its powers by dismissing the Complaint against respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the interpretation limiting the Ombudsman’s power to GOCCs with original charters is valid in light of statutory and constitutional provisions.

Whether the Ombudsman’s act of dismissing the Complaint can be deemed as a grave abuse of discretion given the allegations against the respondent.
Whether the shifting of jurisdiction without addressing the merits of the Complaint undermines the petitioner’s right to proper judicial redress.