Case Summary (G.R. No. 125539)
Petitioner’s Criminal Allegations and Underlying Facts
On May 25, 2011, Trovela filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code against Carlo L. Katigbak, Carlos Pedro C. Salonga and Barbara B. Reyes. Trovela’s affidavit alleged that after his effective termination from Sky Cable in July 2006 his payslips continued to show deductions for MESALA savings and withholding taxes which, when he closed his account on September 6, 2006, were discovered not to have been remitted; Sky Cable allegedly failed to reimburse the unremitted deductions despite demand.
Prosecutorial Dispositions and Administrative Review Sequence
On September 29, 2011, Assistant City Prosecutor Michael B. Robles issued a resolution recommending dismissal of Trovela’s estafa complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Prosecutor II Emmanuel L. ObuAgen and City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang approved that recommendation on October 11, 2011. Trovela filed a petition for review dated November 3, 2011. Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano, by resolution dated February 12, 2013, found no reversible error in Robles’s resolution and affirmed the dismissal. Trovela’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima on April 21, 2015.
Grounds of the Disbarment Complaint
Trovela alleged (summarized): (I) the Office of the Prosecutor ignored jurisprudence that demand is not a condition precedent to establishing embezzlement and that failure to account upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation; (II) Arellano and De Lima sustained erroneous presumptions and misapplied precedent in acting on his petition for review and motion for reconsideration; (III) Arellano and De Lima caused inordinate delay in issuing resolutions and thereby evinced failure to properly examine the record; (IV) De Lima ignored prima facie evidence of corruption and manipulative schemes in related matters; (V) De Lima acted on the estafa case without consolidating related matters; and (VI) collectively, respondents reneged on their duty as prosecutors and committed gross violations and unprofessional conduct warranting disbarment.
Reliefs Sought by the Complainant
Trovela sought, among others: (1) findings of prima facie violations of Article 208 of the RPC and R.A. No. 3019 with referral for prosecution; (2) imposition of disciplinary measures including disbarment and/or removal from office; (3) award of costs and damages; and (4) such other reliefs as the Court may deem just and equitable.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the Court may entertain and adjudicate a disbarment complaint through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against government lawyers for acts and omissions that arose from the performance of their official duties as prosecutors, or whether disciplinary jurisdiction over such acts lies exclusively with their superiors and/or the Office of the Ombudsman.
Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Because the decision was rendered in 2018, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman’s powers under Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), specifically Section 15, paragraph 1, were central to the jurisdictional analysis. The underlying criminal provision invoked by Trovela was Article 315(1)(b) RPC; allegations also invoked R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Court referenced precedents addressing the IBP’s lack of jurisdiction over government lawyers for official acts (citing Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, Samson v. Restrivera, and Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales).
Court’s Ruling — Disposition
The Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against all respondents for lack of jurisdiction.
Court’s Rationale and Reasoning
- The complained acts and omissions arose from the respondents’ performance or discharge of their official duties as prosecutors.
- Disciplinary authority over government lawyers performing official functions is vested primarily in their administrative superiors (for Robles, ObuAgen, Ang, and Arellano, the Secretary of Justice; for Secretary De Lima, the President) and may also be exercised by the Office of the Ombudsman under Section 15(1) of R.A. No. 6770.
- The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 confer upon the Ombudsman the administrative
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 125539)
Nature and Core Issue of the Case
- Disbarment complaint initiated by Manuel B. Trovela against government prosecutors and DOJ officials, raising whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has jurisdiction to investigate and discipline government lawyers for alleged administrative offenses arising from the performance of official duties.
- Central legal question presented: whether the IBP may exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over government lawyers for acts or omissions connected with their official prosecutorial functions, or whether such authority lies exclusively with their superior(s) and/or the Office of the Ombudsman (and, in the case of the Secretary of Justice, with the President).
Parties
- Complainant: Manuel B. Trovela.
- Respondents:
- Michael B. Robles, Pasig City Assistant Prosecutor.
- Emmanuel L. ObuAgen / Emmanuel L. Obungen (variously cited in the source), Prosecutor II, Pasig City.
- Jacinto G. Ang, City Prosecutor, Pasig City.
- Claro A. Arellano, former Prosecutor General.
- Leila M. De Lima, former Secretary, Department of Justice.
- Court panel: Decision authored by Justice Bersamin; concurrence by Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Leonen, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ.
Factual Antecedents (Complainant’s Allegations and Underlying Facts)
- On May 25, 2011, Trovela criminally charged Carlo L. Katigbak, Carlos Pedro C. Salonga, and Barbara B. Reyes with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Trovela’s complaint-affidavit asserted the following key factual points:
- He became Employee Relation Director of Sky Cable on November 1, 2004.
- He received a termination letter dated July 6, 2006, signed by Salonga, informing him of his relief from work and that compensation would be paid until the effective date of termination.
- His payslips for July 16–31, 2006 and August 1–15, 2006 reflected deductions of P2,520.00 per payday period for savings contributions to the Meralco Employees Savings and Loan Association (MESALA).
- Withholding taxes of P4,509.45 and P4,235.70 were also deducted from his compensation for those periods.
- Upon closing his MESALA account on September 6, 2006, Trovela discovered that the aforementioned deductions were not remitted to MESALA.
- Sky Cable did not reimburse the amounts of his unremitted deductions despite demand. [Rollo references: pp. 2–4]
Investigative and Prosecutorial Actions; Relevant Resolutions and Dates
- September 29, 2011: Assistant City Prosecutor Michael B. Robles issued a resolution recommending dismissal of Trovela’s estafa complaint for insufficiency of evidence. [Rollo pp. 34–36]
- October 11, 2011: Prosecutor II Emmanuel L. ObuAgen and City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang approved Robles’s recommendation of dismissal.
- November 3, 2011: Trovela filed a petition for review to appeal the dismissal. [Rollo pp. 42–52]
- February 12, 2013: Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano issued a resolution finding no reversible error in Robles’s September 29, 2011 resolution and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. [Rollo pp. 37–38]
- Trovela moved for reconsideration of Arellano’s resolution.
- April 21, 2015: Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima denied Trovela’s motion for reconsideration. [Rollo pp. 39–41]
Complainant’s Charges, Contentions and Specific Allegations Against Respondents
- Trovela contended that Robles, ObuAgen, and Ang committed grave errors of fact and law warranting inquiry into their mental and moral fitness as members of the Bar.
- He alleged that Arellano and De Lima committed dereliction of duty or gross inexcusable negligence by belatedly resolving his petition for review and motion for reconsideration, and by sustaining erroneous presumptions made by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OPCP).
- Trovela’s principal contentions (as stated in the complaint) include:
- I. The OPCP’s premises in finding no probable cause are contrary to long-standing jurisprudence that demand is not a condition precedent to the crime of embezzlement, and that failure to account upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. [Rollo pp. 6–7]
- II. Arellano and De Lima sustained the erroneous presumptions made by the OPCP when acting on Trovela’s petition for review and motion fo