Case Summary (G.R. No. 161115)
Factual Background
On December 4, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, represented by Teddy F. Parado, filed a complaint against Atty. Jabinal for violating Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. 6713), which prohibits public officials from engaging in the private practice of their profession without prior authorization. The complaint highlighted that Jabinal notarized two documents in 2008 without the required authority from the NHA.
Allegations and Counterarguments
The complaint alleged that Jabinal received payment amounting to P30,000 for notarizing the documents, asserting that her actions fell within the definition of private practice. In response, Jabinal claimed that she had previously filed petitions for notarial commissions and asserted inadvertence in notarizing the documents due to her belief that she was still authorized to do so.
Ombudsman’s Findings
On May 16, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause against Jabinal for her acts of notarization without the required authority. The subsequent Joint Order on December 2, 2016, denied her motion for reconsideration, affirming the previous findings and allowing criminal charges to be filed against her.
Legal Issues Raised
Jabinal challenged the Ombudsman's findings on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion, arguing that her notarization acts did not constitute habitual or unauthorized private practice of law. She emphasized her good faith belief in holding an active notarial commission during the pertinent period.
Court's Analysis
The Court maintained that the Ombudsman has the discretion to investigate and determine the presence of probable cause regarding complaints against public officials. Judgments made by the Ombudsman are generally respected by higher courts unless there is a clear demonstration of grave abuse of discretion.
Definition of Probable Cause
The Court established that probable cause indicates sufficient facts to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has likely been committed. It does not require conclusive evidence to secure a conviction, but rather an opinion based on reasonable belief.
Application of Law
Under Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, public officials are barred from engaging in private practice without appropriate authorization. Jabinal's admission of notarizing documents while lacking official notary status in 2008 was pivotal in the Court's reluctance to find in her favor. The absence of a written authority from the NHA in 2008 rendered her acts as a violation of the law.
Good Faith and Habituality
Despite Jabinal's c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 161115)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Atty. Parina R. Jabinal against the Hon. Overall Deputy Ombudsman.
- The petition seeks to reverse the Resolution dated May 16, 2016, and the Joint Order dated December 2, 2016, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-15-0487.
- The primary issue revolves around allegations of violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Background of the Case
- On December 4, 2015, a complaint was filed against petitioner Jabinal, who was the Division Manager of the Legal Services Department of the National Housing Authority (NHA), by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman.
- The complaint alleged that Jabinal engaged in the private practice of law by notarizing documents without the requisite authority from the NHA, specifically claiming she was not a commissioned notary public in 2008.
- It was alleged that she notarized two documents: a Deed of Sale and a Deed of Assignment for which she received P30,000.00.
Petitioner's Defense
- In her counter affidavit, Jabinal claimed she had filed petitions for notarial commissions in 2006 and again in February 2008, asserting that she believed she was authorized to notarize documents.
- She alleged that the notarization was d