G.R. No. 207355 - Agustin-Se vs. Office of the President

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207355)

Factual Background: The Underlying Ombudsman Case and the Missing Resolution Folder

In early 1995, the Judge Advocate General’s Office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Leopoldo S. Acot, Bgen. (Ret.) Ildelfonso N. Dulinayan, and several others. The complaint was docketed as OMB-AFP-CRIM-94-0218. In a Resolution dated 12 April 1996, Ombudsman investigators Rainier C. Almazan and Rudifer G. Falcis II recommended the filing of Informations against Acot and Dulinayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and/or malversation through falsification. Casimiro, then Director of the Criminal and Administrative Investigation Division of the Office of the Ombudsman and immediate supervisor of Almazan and Falcis, concurred, signed, and indorsed the resolution to his immediate superior.

Later, in a Memorandum dated 10 July 1996, Reynaldo L. Mendoza recommended modification so that charges would be limited to Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. In a Memorandum dated 12 January 1998, Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo recommended dismissal of charges against Acot and Dulinayan for lack of evidence. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved the 12 April 1996 resolution on 2 March 1998, modifying it to dismiss charges against Acot and Dulinayan.

Subsequently, in a Memorandum dated 29 April 2005, record officers of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) informed Casimiro that the main folder containing the 12 April 1996 Resolution could not be located, even though the records had been returned to OMB-MOLEO on 6 March 1998. The discovery occurred during applications for clearance by co-respondents of Acot and Dulinayan. The matter prompted concerns over procedural handling. In a Memorandum dated 7 July 2005, Almazan and Falcis recommended a thorough review due to the delay and the unexplained loss of the main folder.

Casimiro forwarded the memorandum to Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, who directed the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) to study the records. In a Memorandum dated 25 June 2007, the OLA noted that the 12 April 1996 Resolution had “no force and effect because it was never promulgated,” and recommended the filing of Informations against Acot and Dulinayan and others. In a Memorandum dated 23 February 2009, Assistant Special Prosecutor II Terence S. Fernando recommended approval of the OLA memorandum. On 3 March 2009, Casimiro, acting by delegated authority, approved both memoranda. Informations were then filed before the Sandiganbayan as SB-09-CRM-0184 to 0189.

Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan and Petitioners’ Refusal to File the Required Comment/Opposition

Acot and Dulinayan filed Motions to Quash/Dismiss and to Defer Arraignment, invoking (1) alleged prescription of the State’s right to prosecute, and (2) violation of their right to speedy disposition due to the approximately 15-year interval since preliminary investigation began. Dulinayan also claimed he had been issued a clearance stating that there were no pending cases.

The Sandiganbayan required petitioners to submit comments on the motions. Petitioners confirmed the clearance claim with the Ombudsman’s Public Assistance Bureau, and sought certified machine copies of docket entries from the Records Division to determine what occurred after the modification of the 12 April 1996 Resolution. Although the clearance confirmation was timely, the certified machine copies were delayed, compelling petitioners to file several motions for extension of time.

Based on their evaluation, petitioners identified procedural lapses which they attributed to Casimiro. Instead of filing the required Comment and/or Opposition with the Sandiganbayan, they submitted a Memorandum dated 5 January 2010 to then Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio. The memorandum was received by Turalba, the Officer-in-Charge/Director of Prosecution Bureau V, who then attached it to the records and relieved petitioners from the cases, citing remissness in filing the necessary comment or opposition. Turalba filed his own comment and/or opposition. Petitioners sought approval from Villa-Ignacio of their draft comment and/or opposition, and they eventually filed the same with the Sandiganbayan.

The Informations against Acot and Dulinayan were later dismissed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition.

Administrative Complaint and the OP’s Dismissal of Petitioners’ Charges Against Casimiro and Turalba

After the Sandiganbayan dismissal, Turalba furnished Casimiro with petitioners’ 5 January 2010 Memorandum. Casimiro then required petitioners to explain why they should not be held criminally and administratively liable for insubordination, gross neglect, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Petitioners did not respond directly. Instead, they submitted a Memorandum dated 20 January 2010 to Villa-Ignacio explaining their actions.

On 4 February 2010, Casimiro filed a Complaint before the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioners with libel and violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, and administratively with grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross neglect of duty, and insubordination. Petitioners were placed under preventive suspension.

On 3 November 2010, petitioners filed their own complaint before the OP, alleging that Casimiro and Turalba committed administrative infractions including: grave misconduct, gross negligence, oppression, conduct grossly prejudicial, violation of rules on confidentiality, violation of Office Order No. 05-18 and Office Order No. 05-13, and violation of Section 35 of RA No. 6770, allegedly amounting to dishonesty and gross misconduct.

In its Decision dated 14 June 2011, the OP dismissed petitioners’ complaint against Casimiro and Turalba. On alleged delay, the OP ruled that the delay in the preliminary investigation of OMB-AFP-CRM-94-0218 could not be validly attributed to Casimiro, whose participation was limited to an initial review as bureau director, submission of the 7 July 2005 memorandum, and approval of the final resolution and Informations by delegated authority after the 12 April 1996 resolution had been treated as never promulgated. The OP emphasized that Casimiro had a right to presume regularity in the investigation, and that the Office of Legal Affairs concluded that the 12 April 1996 resolution had never become final. It thus held that no delay could be attributed to Casimiro who “came across the records” years after he signed the earlier recommendation, particularly because the Ombudsman itself never considered the resolution final and executory.

On confidentiality, the OP held that the 5 January 2010 Memorandum was not confidential or classified information within the meaning of RA No. 6713 and RA No. 3019, and therefore Casimiro could not be faulted for requiring petitioners to explain their actions. Likewise, Turalba could not be faulted for furnishing a copy of the memorandum to Casimiro because the recipient was the subject of the investigation that petitioners sought to initiate.

The OP denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 2 November 2011. Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision dated 29 November 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the OP. It held that any delay was necessitated by layers of preliminary investigation and multiple reviews within the Ombudsman under different leaderships. It also observed that Casimiro concurred with the recommendations of Almazan and Falcis which were initially made to file Informations; however, the Court of Appeals stressed that Ombudsman Desierto later approved a modification to dismiss the charges against Acot and Dulinayan. Hence, after the modification, there was no Information to be filed against them before the Sandiganbayan. Consequently, Casimiro could not be faulted for delay because the charges were dismissed upon modification approved by Desierto.

The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 23 May 2013.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

Petitioners pursued review on certiorari under Rule 45 and assigned multiple errors, including: (A) deprivation of due process for alleged non-consideration of evidence during administrative adjudication; (B) grave error in finding no substantial evidence against Casimiro for delay and against both Casimiro and Turalba for alleged violations of the cited office orders and statutes; (C) alleged error in sustaining the finding that petitioners’ preventive suspension was justified due to delay in filing comments; (D) alleged error in sustaining dismissal of the complaint; (E) alleged error in applying Executive Order No. 13; and (F) alleged failure to rule on various issues, including alleged non-decision on issues related to findings in C.A. G.R. No. 114210.

Supreme Court Disposition: Lack of Merit and Confinement to Questions of Law Under Rule 45

The Court denied the petition. It first addressed procedural scope. It noted that petitioners’ submissions raised issues that were not proper under Rule 45 because they involved assessment of evidence and probative value. The Court reiterated the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact, stating that when resolution requires examination of evidence, the matter is one of fact. It held that the asserted failures to consider evidence, alleged errors on substantial evidence, challenges to administrative findings on preventive suspension, and claims of contradiction with jurisprudence all depended on reevaluation or analysis of the record. The Court also emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and would not review factual findings absent exceptions, which petitioners failed to establish.

Due Process: Opportunity to Be Heard and Reconsideration

On due process, petition

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207355)

Petitioners Jennifer A. Agustin-Se and Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez sought review on certiorari to annul the Court of Appeals decisions that affirmed the Office of the President (OP) dismissal of their administrative complaint against Orlando C. Casimiro, Office of the President, and related officials.
Petitioners were Assistant Special Prosecutors III of the Office of the Ombudsman, assigned to prosecute, before the Sandiganbayan, alleged ghost deliveries of supplies and materials to the Philippine Air Force amounting to approximately PHP 89,000,000.00.
Respondents included Orlando C. Casimiro, then Director and later Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO, and John I.C. Turalba, Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor and Officer-in-Charge, Director, Prosecution Bureau V.
The litigation centered on alleged administrative liabilities for supposed delay in the filing of Informations, alleged failures in confidentiality, and alleged errors in the handling of petitioners’ own pleadings during the prosecution stage.
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals rulings sustaining the OP dismissal.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to set aside the 29 November 2012 Decision and the 23 May 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals had affirmed the 14 June 2011 Decision of the OP dismissing petitioners’ administrative complaint.
The OP dismissal covered the complaint against Casimiro and Turalba, and the subsequent denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners’ complaint arose from events during an Ombudsman prosecution process that ultimately led to the dismissal of related criminal Informations by the Sandiganbayan for violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition of the case.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioners’ duties involved prosecuting cases against Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Leopoldo S. Acot, Bgen. (Ret.) Ildelfonso N. Dulinayan, and others for alleged ghost deliveries.
An earlier AFP-related complaint was filed before the Ombudsman and docketed as OMB-AFP-CRIM-94-0218.
Ombudsman Investigators Almazan and Falcis recommended in a 12 April 1996 Resolution the filing of Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and/or Malversation through Falsification.

Casimiro, as Director of the Criminal and Administrative Investigation Division, concurred in and signed the 12 April 1996 Resolution, and indorsed it to his superior.

Later prosecutorial memoranda recommended modification and dismissal outcomes for Acot and Dulinayan, culminating in Ombudsman Desierto approving the 12 April 1996 Resolution with modifications on 2 March 1998.

Recordkeeping irregularities later surfaced when a main folder containing the 12 April 1996 Resolution could not be located, and this anomaly was brought to Casimiro’s attention during clearance requests made by co-respondents in the case.

Petitioners alleged that the delay in the filing of Informations should be attributed to Casimiro, constituting administrative infractions such as grave misconduct, gross neglect, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Petitioners further alleged that during the prosecution stage, they were faulted by Turalba for not filing required comments or oppositions, despite procedural lapses they attributed to Casimiro, and despite petitioners having submitted a memorandum of findings.

Petitioners alleged that Turalba furnished Casimiro with petitioners’ 5 January 2010 Memorandum, which petitioners claimed was confidential and a protected disclosure under Office Order No. 05-18.

Petitioners also invoked Section 35 of RA No. 6770 to establish liability for malicious prosecution against Casimiro.
Petitioners’ own administrative complaint before the OP against Casimiro and Turalba listed multiple charges, including alleged violations of confidentiality rules and Office Orders No. 05-18 and 05-13.

Ombudsman and Prosecution Sequence

The Sandiganbayan required petitioners to comment on the motions to quash/dismiss filed by the accused, including motions anchored on prescription and speedy disposition.
Petitioners confirmed the accused’s claim about issuance of a clearance with the Public Assistance Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Petitioners sought certified machine copies of docket entries, and the resulting delay required multiple motions for extensions of time.
Petitioners submitted a memorandum dated 5 January 2010 containing findings against Casimiro instead of filing a Sandiganbayan comment/opposition.
The memorandum was addressed to then Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio but was routed through Turalba, who allegedly attached it to the records and relieved petitioners from the Sandiganbayan case for claimed remissness.
Turalba filed the required comment/opposition, prompting petitioners to seek Villa-Ignacio’s approval for their version, after which they filed it with the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan later dismissed the Informations against Acot, Dulinayan, and others due to violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition.
After the dismissal, Casimiro demanded an explanation from petitioners, but petitioners instead submitted another memorandum, which they addressed to Villa-Ignacio.
Casimiro then filed a complaint before the Internal Affairs Board against petitioners, including charges of libel and violations of **Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, and administrative charges such as grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross neglect, and insubordination.
Petitioners, meanwhile, filed their own OP complaint against Casimiro and Turalba, alleging administrative infractions tied to the prosecution process and to the claimed mishandling of their memorandum.

OP and Court of Appeals Rulings

The OP dismissed petitioners’ complaint in its 14 June 2011 Decision, and later denied reconsideration on 2 November 2011.
On the alleged delay in the preliminary investigation, the OP ruled the delay could not be attributed to Casimiro because his participation began at his initial review as Director, his approval by delegated authority, and his approval of final resolutions after he was appointed Deputy Ombudsman on 16 December 1999.
The OP emphasized that the Office of Legal Affairs concluded that the 12 April 1996 Resolution had “no force and effect because it was never promulgated,” so that no blame could be placed on Casimiro for delays associated with the resolution’s status.
The OP reasoned that no delay could be attributed to Casimiro in filing because the Ombudsman itself did not treat the 12 April 1996 Resolution as final and executory.
On confidentiality, the OP held that the 5 January 2010 Memorandum was not confidential or classified information within the ambit of RA No. 6713 and RA No. 3019, so Turalba could not be faulted for furnishing it to Casimiro.
The OP also held that Casimiro’s directive for petitioners to explain their action was justified given the insinuation by petitioners that the delay in the preliminary investigation was caused by Casimiro.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP on 29 November 2012, ruling that the delay, if any, was linked to layers of review and multiple preliminary investigation steps under different Ombudsman leadership.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Desierto overruled earlier recommendations and concurrence and approved the modification that dismissed charges against Acot and Dulinayan, so there was “nothing to be filed” after that approval.
In its 23 May 2013 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.

Issues Raised

Petitioners contended that their right to due process was violated because the OP allegedly did not consider evidence they presented during the administrative adjudication.
Petitio