G.R. No. 89679-81 - Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

Atty. Terencia S. Erni-Rivera, a Career Service Employee, entered government service on July 18, 1978 and steadily ascended through various permanent posts.
She was eventually appointed as Public Attorney V (PA5) for PAO Regional Office No. III by a presidential appointment dated March 8, 2004.

Shortly after assuming her duties as PA5, PAO received a Letter dated August 13, 2004 and an Affidavit dated August 17, 2004 from Hazel F. Magabo.

Magabo alleged that, contrary to PAO’s internal rules, Atty. Rivera handled an annulment case for Magabo’s brother, Isidro Fayloga.
It was alleged that Atty. Rivera received staggered payments totaling Ninety-Three Thousand Pesos (P93,000.00) comprising funds sent by Fayloga from abroad and personal advances made by Magabo.

Magabo, after discovering that no petition was filed on Fayloga’s behalf, produced bank slips and a summary of payments as evidence supporting her claims.
In her defense, Atty. Rivera admitted to receiving the money but asserted that it was entrusted to her solely to facilitate the search for a competent private practitioner and to cover professional fees and litigation expenses.
Upon realizing that Fayloga would not pursue the annulment case, Atty. Rivera returned the money.
PAO forwarded the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), leading to the filing of a formal administrative complaint on September 28, 2005, charging Atty. Rivera with grave misconduct and violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Despite initial proceedings, Magabo later submitted an Affidavit of Desistance, declaring her loss of interest in pursuing the complaint, attributing the whole matter to a misunderstanding among family members.
Nevertheless, on March 27, 2007, the DOJ issued a Resolution finding Atty. Rivera liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing a suspension penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay.

During the pendency of the DOJ proceeding, Atty. Rivera submitted a Certificate of Service for November 2006 which indicated that she “reported for work and performed her duties as Regional Public Attorney for the month of November 2006.”
In contrast, District Public Attorney Emilio G. Aclan issued a Certification dated December 19, 2006 showing that Atty. Rivera physically reported to the PAO office from November 13 to November 24, 2006.
Deputy Chief Public Attorney Silvestre Mosing, noting these “discrepancies,” summoned Atty. Rivera to explain why she should not face administrative and criminal liability.
In her Comment/Explanation submitted on December 27, 2006, Atty. Rivera clarified that the apparent differences were due to non-working days such as weekends, holidays, filed leaves, and official business, and thus maintained there was no irregularity.
The PAO Legal Research Division, after its own evaluation, recommended administrative charges for violations including: falsification of official documents, neglect of duty, and simple misconduct under the applicable Civil Service rules and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS).
Acting on this recommendation, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita ordered a preventive suspension for Atty. Rivera for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days.

Following the findings from the DOJ and the PAO Legal Research Division, the PAO Designated Resident Ombudsman, Atty. Melita S. Recto, submitted a Report on August 31, 2007 recommending that Atty. Rivera be held both administratively and criminally liable.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), in coordination with Atty. Recto, filed Criminal Complaints against Atty. Rivera for the alleged violations under:

Section 7(b)(2) and (d) of RA 6713 (regarding unauthorized private practice and solicitation/acceptance of fees)
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (concerning causing undue injury or granting unwarranted benefits)
Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code (pertaining to falsification by a public officer)

On September 1, 2010, the Ombudsman issued the Assailed Resolution dismissing the Criminal Complaints due to lack of probable cause.
PAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2010 and October 26, 2010 respectively, which were both denied in the Assailed Order dated November 30, 2010.
PAO, having received a copy of the Assailed Order on June 1, 2011, elevated the matter by filing a Petition for Certiorari on July 29, 2011.

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Criminal Complaints against Atty. Rivera due to the alleged failure to establish probable cause.

Specifically, the issue pertains to whether the dismissals were affected by an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power that evades the Ombudsman's positive duty under the investigative and prosecutorial mandate.
Whether PAO’s contention that the Ombudsman required an evidentiary threshold beyond that necessary for establishing probable cause holds merit.