Golangco vs. Fung

A public officer's warrantless arrest during a legitimate entrapment operation, based on reasonable belief of violation of labor laws prohibiting unauthorized recruitment activities, does not constitute administrative offenses like oppression or grave misconduct when performed in good faith, though courts lack jurisdiction to review Ombudsman findings of probable cause in criminal cases.

The case arises from complaints about excessive placement fees charged by recruitment agencies for overseas employment, leading to investigations by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce labor laws against illegal recruitment practices, including non-transferability of recruitment licenses.

On February 1, 1993, DOLE Secretary Nieves Confesor received a complaint from Edwin Belarmino via Senator Ernesto Maceda alleging G&M (Phil.) Inc. charged P20,000 initial fee out of P55,000 total for Taiwan factory worker placement; the complaint was referred to POEA Administrator, who directed respondent Atty. Jone B. Fung, Officer-in-Charge of Operations and Surveillance Division, to investigate and conduct surveillance; on February 8, 1993, POEA inspectors visited G&M and inquired from petitioner Jowett K. Golangco, who denied excessive fees; on February 10, 1993, PNP-CIS operatives posed as applicants, were informed by employee Elizabeth Encenada of P55,000 fee structure (P7,000 downpayment, P20,000 after documents, P28,000 at airport), and recommended entrapment; on February 15, 1993, joint POEA-CIS team led by Fung conducted entrapment, where Encenada received P7,000 from operative SPO4 Bonita and was arrested; Golangco arrived later, was arrested without warrant based on suspicion of authorizing Encenada's unauthorized recruitment under Article 29 of Labor Code, detained until 7:30 p.m., then released; Encenada and Golangco charged with Labor Code violations, but charges against Golangco dismissed for lack of probable cause, while Encenada's proceeded; administrative cases against G&M dismissed for lack of evidence of agency involvement.

Petitioners Golangco and Ombudsman argue that the Court of Appeals erred in finding probable cause for Fung's warrantless arrest of Golangco, as it violated constitutional requirements and Golangco committed no crime; the arrest was unlawful, warranting Fung's dismissal for oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty, and grave misconduct; the Court of Appeals exceeded jurisdiction by reviewing and directing withdrawal of the criminal case against Fung, which is independent of the administrative matter and beyond its appellate authority over Ombudsman decisions.

Respondent Fung argues that the arrest was valid as part of a legitimate entrapment operation based on surveillance evidence showing Encenada's unauthorized recruitment activities at G&M premises, implying Golangco's authorization in violation of Labor Code Article 29; he acted in good faith enforcing the law without malice, oppression, or negligence, and the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the administrative finding of guilt while properly addressing the related criminal aspect to ensure consistency.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause in the criminal case (OMB-0-93-0407) and direct withdrawal of the filed information (Criminal Case No. 96-149144), given its limited appellate authority over administrative disciplinary cases only.
• Substantive Issues: Whether Fung's warrantless arrest of Golangco during the entrapment constituted oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty, or grave misconduct, absent probable cause or commission of a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court declared void the Court of Appeals' directive to withdraw the criminal information, as the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases, which are distinct and independent from administrative matters; such review results in a void judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, per established jurisprudence limiting appellate review to administrative disciplinary actions under Rule 43.
• Substantive: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Ombudsman's administrative finding of guilt against Fung, holding that the arrest was lawful and in good faith based on reasonable grounds from surveillance indicating violation of Labor Code Article 29 through unauthorized recruitment by Encenada under Golangco's implied authority; no elements of oppression, inefficiency, neglect, or misconduct were present, as Fung diligently performed his duty without malice or flagrant breach.

• Presumption of Good Faith — A legal presumption that public officers act honestly and in accordance with law unless proven otherwise; applied here to protect Fung's actions in the arrest, as no evidence of malice or bad faith was shown, shielding him from administrative liability even if mistakes occurred.
• Non-Transferability of Recruitment License (Labor Code Article 29) — Prohibits use of a recruitment license by unauthorized persons or transfer without DOLE approval; interpreted in this case to justify the belief that Golangco violated it by allowing Encenada's unauthorized activities, providing basis for the warrantless arrest under circumstances suggesting ongoing offense.
• Jurisdictional Limits on Court of Appeals Review of Ombudsman Actions — The Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction under Rule 43 extends only to administrative disciplinary decisions of the Ombudsman, not criminal probable cause findings; used to void the CA's interference in the criminal case, emphasizing separation between administrative and criminal proceedings.

• "Even mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are not actionable as long as it is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith." — Citing Sanders v. Veridiano II, to underscore protection for good faith actions by public officers.
• "The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases." — Clarifying jurisdictional boundaries.

• Fabian v. Hon. Desierto — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that appeals from Ombudsman administrative decisions go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, limiting jurisdiction and justifying referral of Fung's petition; distinguished from criminal reviews.
• Kuizon v. Desierto — Referenced to affirm that Court of Appeals jurisdiction is confined to administrative cases, rendering its review of criminal probable cause void; followed to separate administrative and criminal aspects.
• Sanders v. Veridiano II — Cited as illustrative of good faith presumption protecting public officers from liability for non-malicious acts; applied directly to exonerate Fung.
• Salalima v. Guingona, Jr. — Used to define oppression as cruelty or excessive authority; distinguished as not applicable due to lack of such elements in Fung's conduct.

• Labor Code, Article 29 — Prohibits non-transferability of recruitment licenses; relevant as the basis for probable cause in suspecting Golangco's authorization of unauthorized recruitment, justifying the arrest.
• Labor Code, Articles 32 and 34(a) — Penalize illegal recruitment fees and unauthorized recruitment; applied in initial charges against Encenada and Golangco, forming the context for the entrapment and administrative proceedings.
• Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) — Criminalizes causing undue injury through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence by public officers; central to the criminal information filed against Fung for the allegedly unlawful arrest.
• Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies like the Ombudsman in administrative cases; relevant to limit Court of Appeals' jurisdiction and void its criminal review.