G.R. No. 207926 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207926)

Factual Background

Respondent Mislang was the Commanding Officer of the 41st Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army. Complainants alleged that respondent conspired with Vicente P. Valera and agents Mauro Durwin and Florencio Baharin to assassinate Cecilia S. Luna, former Mayor of Lagayan, Abra, and her family. The complainants Corporal Eduardo Barcelona and Corporal Antonio Rosqueta executed affidavits and later gave Sinumpaang Salaysay claiming that respondent gave them firearms, seed money, and orders to effect the assassination. The planned murder allegedly did not occur because intended victims were absent. Barcelona and Rosqueta subsequently distanced themselves from respondent, were placed on AWOL status, and reported respondent to military authorities. On a later occasion Durwin and Baharin shot Rosqueta dead and seriously wounded Barcelona.

Ombudsman Investigation and Joint Decision

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication of complaints filed between March and April 2005. The Ombudsman dismissed charges against Vicente P. Valera but found respondent Mislang, Durwin, and Baharin guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service in its Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011. The records showed that respondent did not file a counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman and that the Ombudsman relied principally on the affidavits of Barcelona and Rosqueta. An order for immediate execution of respondent’s dismissal issued on the same date.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Respondent appealed the Ombudsman Joint Decision to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 43 petition without first seeking reconsideration from the Ombudsman. The CA, acting on the appeal, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman Joint Decision on the ground of res judicata. The CA held that the General Court Martial, Philippine Army, had earlier taken cognizance of the same allegations, arraigned respondent, and rendered an Order dated February 7, 2007 declaring him "Not Guilty." The CA applied the principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, observed the absence of independent corroborative evidence of conspiracy beyond the extrajudicial confessions of co-conspirators, and relied on the January 28, 2004 Memorandum of Agreement to conclude that the military court’s prior adjudication precluded further action by the Ombudsman.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue was whether the CA correctly set aside the Ombudsman Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011. The Office of the Ombudsman argued that res judicata did not apply, that its findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that it retained jurisdiction despite the General Court Martial’s exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. The Ombudsman further contended that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies by omitting a motion for reconsideration before appealing to the CA and that respondent’s petition to the CA should have been dismissed for failure to attach the questioned Joint Decision.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Procedural Objections

The Court rejected the Ombudsman’s contention that respondent’s CA petition should have been dismissed for lack of attachment of the Joint Decision. The Court found no basis to infer that the CA did not have a correct copy; the CA’s opinion reflected citation of the May 9, 2011 Joint Decision. The Court also found no merit in the assertion that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court reiterated that the exhaustion doctrine admits exceptions, including cases presenting due process violations and pure legal questions. Because respondent raised due process concerns about nonreceipt of complaint affidavits and the legal effect of a prior military acquittal, the Court held that a prior motion for reconsideration was not a prerequisite to appellate review.

Concurrence of Jurisdiction Between the Ombudsman and the Military Courts

The Court reaffirmed that the Ombudsman and the General Court Martial have concurrent jurisdiction over disciplinary matters involving military personnel, particularly service-connected violations under the Articles of War. The Court explained that court-martial proceedings are sui generis and encompass both criminal and administrative disciplinary character, and that both tribunals may impose dismissal as a disciplinary sanction. The Court reiterated the settled rule that, where disciplining authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal that first takes cognizance of the complaint acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. The Court examined the January 28, 2004 MOA and concluded that it did not divest the Ombudsman of plenary jurisdiction but operationalized coordination and endorsed non-graft cases to the AFP when the AFP first acquires jurisdiction.

Application of the Concurrence Rule to the Present Case

The Court found that the AFP had first acquired jurisdiction in this controversy. It observed that Sinumpaang Salaysay were executed at the Philippine Army Headquarters on December 17, 2004, an investigation report was submitted to the Army Inspector General on January 31, 2005, and respondent had been reassigned pending investigation as early as January 13, 2005. These events preceded the earliest complaint filed with the Ombudsman on March 8, 2005. In light of the MOA’s endorsement mechanism and the first-to-take-cognizance rule, the Court held that the General Court Martial’s exercise of jurisdiction excluded the Ombudsman from further acting on the same complaints. Consequently, the Court concluded that the CA correctly set aside the Ombudsman Joint Decision.

Due Process and Substantial Evidence Considerations

The Court addressed, in the alternative, the sufficiency of the Ombudsman’s decision on the merits. The Court found that the Ombudsman failed to afford respondent fundamental due process be

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207926)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Office of the Ombudsman filed a Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011 finding respondents guilty of grave misconduct and meting the penalty of dismissal from the service in three consolidated administrative cases.
Col. Noel P. Mislang was one of the respondents found guilty and he appealed the Joint Decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated October 15, 2012 and a resolution dated June 7, 2013 reversing and setting aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision on the ground that a General Court Martial, PA had earlier acquitted the respondent.
Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court to challenge the CA rulings.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainants alleged that Col. Noel P. Mislang, together with agents Mauro Durwin and Florencio Baharin and Governor Vicente P. Valera, hatched a plot to assassinate Mayor Cecilia S. Luna and her family.
Complainant Corporal Eduardo Barcelona and the deceased Corporal Antonio Rosqueta executed affidavits alleging that respondent gave them .45 caliber pistols, seed money, and orders to tail and assassinate Mayor Luna.
The alleged assassination was to occur at a birthday party but failed because Mayor Luna’s sons were absent, after which Barcelona and Rosqueta were allegedly placed AWOL and later targeted for killing.
Durwin and Baharin were alleged to have shot Rosqueta to death and seriously wounded Barcelona while en route to an event in Isabela Province.
Col. Noel P. Mislang did not file a counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman to refute the allegations.

Procedural History

Complaint-affidavits were dated March 8, 2005 (Luna), March 11, 2005 (Barcelona), and April 13, 2005 (Elena V. Rosqueta).
The Ombudsman dismissed charges against Vicente P. Valera but found Col. Noel P. Mislang, Mauro Durwin, and Florencio Baharin guilty and ordered dismissal on May 9, 2011.
An order for execution of dismissal was issued on the same date.
Col. Noel P. Mislang appealed to the Court of Appeals without first seeking reconsideration from the Ombudsman.
The CA reversed the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision on October 15, 2012 on res judicata grounds, and denied reconsideration on June 7, 2013.
The Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011.
Whether the acquittal of Col. Noel P. Mislang by the General Court Martial, PA rendered the Ombudsman’s proceedings barred under res judicata.
Whether the Ombudsman validly exercised jurisdiction and whether its Joint Decision was supported by substantial evidence and rendered with due regard to due process.
Whether the respondent’s appeal to the CA without first seeking reconsideration from the Ombudsman was a fatal procedural defect.

Contentions of the Parties

Office of the Ombudsman contended that its Joint Decision was supported by substantial evidence and that it may decide administrative disciplinary cases on affidavits and documents alone.
Office of the Ombudsman also argued that the January 28, 2004 Memorandum of Agreement did not divest it of jurisdiction and that the respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies and improperly failed to attach the assailed decision to his CA petition.
Col. Noel P. Mislang and the Court of Appeals contended that the General Court Martial, PA had earlier acquired jurisdiction, had tried and acquitted the respondent on the same acts, and that the Ombu