Title
Spouses Buffe vs. Gonzalez
Case
A.C. No. 8168
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2016
Karen Silverio-Buffe's appointment as prosecutor was contested; allegations of political interference led to a dismissed administrative case due to jurisdiction issues and respondent's death.
disbarment complaint
unethical act
appointment

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8168)

Factual Background Relating to the Appointment and Withholding of Papers

On 15 July 2008, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Karen M. Silverio-Buffe as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon. On 15 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe took her oath of office before Judge Jesusa P. Maningas, and furnished copies of the oath to the Office of the President, the Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Justice (DOJ). She then notified the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon that she would officially begin working on 19 August 2008.

A letter dated 26 August 2008 was sent by Romblon Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio R.M. Almadin to former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez, seeking confirmation of Silverio-Buffe’s appointment because the Provincial Prosecution Office did not receive any official communication regarding her appointment. Subsequently, in a Memorandum Order dated 19 December 2008, Gonzalez ordered Silverio-Buffe to “cease and desist from acting as prosecutor” in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon or any prosecutor’s office, reasoning that she allegedly had “no appointment to act as such,” and warning that she would be charged with usurpation of public office if she continued.

Filing of the Joint Complaint and Core Allegations

On 11 February 2009, Silverio-Buffe and her husband Edwin B. Buffe filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the OBC, alleging that Madrona, motivated by spite or revenge, persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe’s oath of office and into withholding the transmittal of her appointment papers to the DOJ Regional Office. They anchored the alleged motive on Madrona’s alleged hostility arising from Silverio-Buffe’s status as a plaintiff in a civil case involving the enforcement of a Radio Broadcast Contract, which had been cancelled after adverse commentaries against Madrona and his allies.

The complainants’ narrative included several specific events. They claimed that on 1 August 2008, the Malacañang Records Office transmitted the appointment papers to the DOJ and that the papers were received by a clerk named Gino Dela Pena. They also alleged that on 13 August 2008, a person identified as Cora from the Personnel Division of the DOJ asked Silverio-Buffe whether she had any “connection” in the Office of the Secretary because her papers were being withheld by Exconde; upon Silverio-Buffe’s reply that she had no connections, Cora allegedly asked her to return the following day. They further asserted that on 14 August 2008, Gonzalez informed Silverio-Buffe that Madrona strongly opposed her appointment and advised her to work out matters with Madrona.

The complainants added that Silverio-Buffe took her oath on 15 August 2008 because Gonzalez refused to administer it. They maintained that Silverio-Buffe wrote Gonzalez twice pleading for transmittal of the appointment papers, but Gonzalez allegedly never replied. Finally, they alleged that on 13 November 2008, they met Exconde at the DOJ, where Exconde asked them to devise a solution to Madrona’s opposition. The complainants claimed Exconde asked for the reason for Madrona’s opposition; Silverio-Buffe answered that she supported Madrona’s rival, Eduardo Firmalo, during the elections. They stated that Exconde persuaded Silverio-Buffe to talk with Madrona, but she insisted that she would not approach Madrona due to their divergent principles, and that Exconde then suggested that Silverio-Buffe write a letter to Gonzalez stating that she had approached Madrona yet was ignored, although Silverio-Buffe allegedly refused that suggestion.

Respondents’ Denials and Procedural Defenses

In a Resolution dated 15 April 2009, the Supreme Court, through the First Division, required the respondents to comment on the complaint. In his Comment with Counter-Complaint dated 23 June 2009, Madrona denied acting out of spite or revenge and denied that he persuaded, induced, or influenced anyone to refuse to administer the oath or to withhold transmittal of appointment papers. He argued that the allegations were unproven and based on conjecture and hearsay. Madrona also claimed that complainants were accountable for alleged dishonest and deceitful conduct in submitting to the Court a complaint without its last two pages and a contract allegedly altered by Silverio-Buffe.

In their joint Comment dated 1 July 2009, Gonzalez and Exconde asserted that (1) the complaint was unfounded and aimed at harassment because Silverio-Buffe’s appointment papers were not endorsed by the Office of the President to the DOJ for implementation; (2) the Court allegedly lacked jurisdiction because violations of RA 6713 and civil service rules should be filed before the Civil Service Commission, while violations of RA 3019 should be filed before the Sandiganbayan; (3) the proper venue was allegedly the Office of the President; (4) assuming the appointment papers were withheld, such act was allegedly presumed to be the act of the President based on the presumption of regularity of official functions; and (5) Exconde was allegedly erroneously impleaded because he allegedly never signed any document related to Silverio-Buffe’s appointment.

In her Reply dated 17 July 2009, Silverio-Buffe insisted that her appointment papers had been endorsed by the Office of the President to the Office of the Secretary of Justice, citing an Endorsement Letter of then Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita. She argued that Exconde, as Chief of Personnel Management and Development under the Office of the Secretary of Justice, refused to forward her appointment letter for implementation to the Personnel Division of the DOJ.

Referral to the IBP and the IBP’s Divergent Outcomes

In a Resolution dated 21 October 2009, the Supreme Court, through the Third Division, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The case later included developments on transmittal of the appointment papers. A Memorandum dated 12 July 2010 showed that then DOJ Secretary Leila M. De Lima transmitted Silverio-Buffe’s appointment papers to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon.

In a Resolution dated 20 October 2010, the Supreme Court, through the Second Division, referred the motion to dismiss filed by Madrona to the IBP. Madrona sought dismissal based on alleged forum-shopping, alleging that he had received an order from the Office of the Ombudsman directing him to file a counter-affidavit grounded on the same administrative complaint filed before the OBC.

The IBP’s Report and Recommendation dated 5 October 2011 found the complaint meritorious and recommended the penalty of censure against the respondents. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondents’ “united action” of stopping Silverio-Buffe’s appointment was unethical. However, the IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XX-2012-215 dated 28 June 2012, reversed the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommended dismissal, holding that the complaint lacked merit. The complainants’ motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. XX-2013-307 dated 21 March 2013, for lack of cogent reasons to reverse and as a mere reiteration of matters already considered.

Issue before the Supreme Court

When complainants elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, the Court framed the issue as whether Gonzalez, Exconde, and Madrona should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint. The Supreme Court did not reach the substantive determination of whether the alleged acts constituted unethical conduct or statutory violations. It resolved the matter on jurisdictional grounds and mootness.

Ruling of the Court: Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and Mootness

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case against Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. and Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the proper forum was the Office of the Ombudsman, because complainants had filed a complaint with it on 12 February 2009. The Court anchored this authority on Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the Office of the Ombudsman power to investigate, on its own or by complaint, any act or omission of a public official or employee that appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

The Court further relied on Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6770, which provides that the Ombudsman’s provisions apply to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by an officer or employee as mentioned in the statute during tenure of office. It also invoked Section 19 of RA 6770, which authorizes the Ombudsman to act on complaints involving acts or omissions that are contrary to law or regulation, unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or discriminatory, inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, proceed from a mistake of law or arbitrary ascertainment of facts, involve discretionary powers for an improper purpose, or are otherwise irregular, immoral, or devoid of justification.

Applying these provisions, the Supreme Court treated Exconde and Madrona as public officers being charged for alleged actions within their official functions during their tenure, and for conduct alleged to be unfair and discriminatory. The Court concluded that the case therefore fell within the Ombudsman’s remedial and investigatory jurisdiction. It also emphasized that the IBP had no jurisdiction over government lawyers charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties, stating that disciplinary authority over such acts belonged either to a superior or to the Ombudsman. The Court added that an anomalous outcome could result if the IBP assumed jurisdiction and rendered a decision contrary to the disciplinary authority’s findings.

As to former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonz

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms