Joson vs. Office of the Ombudsman

The Supreme Court affirmed that judicial review of the Office of the Ombudsman's decisions requires strict adherence to procedural rules: dismissal of an administrative complaint where the respondent is exonerated must be challenged via a Rule 43 petition before the Court of Appeals, while dismissal of a criminal complaint may be challenged via a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the relaxation of procedural rules, such as deadlines for filing motions, is not a matter of right and is granted only for compelling reasons, which were absent in this case.

The dispute arose from a political rivalry within the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija. The petitioner, Edward Thomas F. Joson, was the Vice Governor, while the primary respondent, Aurelio M. Umali, was the Governor. The complaint centered on the alleged anomalous disbursement of public funds amounting to P1,272,000.00 for catering services during Governor Umali's oath-taking ceremony on July 4, 2007. Joson alleged that the payment was made to a caterer who did not actually provide the service, and the transaction was a fraudulent scheme involving the governor and other provincial officials to misappropriate public funds.

• Petitioner Joson filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Ombudsman against respondents Umali, Agtay, Abesamis, Pancho, and Pallanan, all officials of the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija.
• The complaint alleged that for Governor Umali's oath-taking ceremony on July 4, 2007, a fraudulent transaction was made to pay Ryan Angelo Sweets and Catering Services (owned by Cleopatra Gervacio) P1,272,000.00 for meals it did not provide.
• Joson claimed another caterer actually served the event, and respondent Agtay merely asked Cleopatra for a receipt to justify the withdrawal of P1,344,000.00 from the provincial treasury.
• Citing Cleopatra's sworn statement, Joson alleged that after the check was cleared, its proceeds were given to Agtay, with P734,000.00 deposited into Agtay's personal bank account.
• Joson argued that all respondents conspired in the illegal disbursement, as evidenced by their signatures on the Purchase Order, Obligation Request, Bids and Awards Committee Resolution, and Disbursement Voucher.
• He further alleged that the number of packed lunches supposedly delivered was grossly disproportionate to the venue's capacity and that the disbursement voucher lacked the required signature of the provincial accountant.

• The Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges, as the evidence on hand, particularly the sworn statement of caterer Cleopatra Gervacio, was sufficient to establish probable cause.
• The respondents conspired to defraud the government, and their individual participation was established through their signatures on the procurement and disbursement documents.
• The gross excess in the quantity of packed lunches allegedly delivered is a clear badge of fraud.
• The late filing of the Motion for Reconsideration before the Ombudsman should be excused in the interest of substantial justice.
• A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy to assail the Ombudsman's decision, especially since the administrative absolution is not appealable.

• The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration before the Ombudsman was filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the dismissal of the complaints final and executory.
• The petitioner availed of the wrong remedy; the dismissal of the administrative complaint should have been elevated to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43.
• The Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as its decision to dismiss the complaints was based on a finding that the petitioner's allegations were unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and based on mere conjecture.
• Respondent Umali claimed his signatures were ministerial, relying on the certifications of his subordinates that the documents were in order.
• Respondent Agtay denied receiving any money and asserted he was not yet a provincial government employee when the catering services were procured.
• Respondent Abesamis denied any knowledge of or participation in the alleged fraudulent transaction.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner's late filing of his motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman bars him from instituting a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
  • Whether a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge the Ombudsman's dismissal of both the criminal and administrative aspects of the complaint.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the criminal and administrative charges against the private respondents for lack of probable cause and lack of merit.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time (10 days late for the criminal case and 5 days late for the administrative case), and as such, the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution had already become final. While procedural rules may be relaxed, the petitioner failed to present compelling reasons to justify the delay.
  • The Court held that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy for the administrative charge. Following the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, a decision of the Ombudsman exonerating a respondent in an administrative case is final and unappealable, but may be questioned before the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioner's failure to do so rendered the administrative absolution final. A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 is the correct remedy for the dismissal of a criminal complaint, but only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. It reiterated the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. The Ombudsman's determination that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause was not made in an arbitrary, capricious, or despotic manner. The petitioner's evidence was deemed uncorroborated and his allegations were based on suppositions, which are insufficient to sustain criminal and administrative charges.

• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules — This principle allows for the relaxation of procedural rules to serve the ends of substantial justice. However, the Court clarified that this is not a blanket authority and is warranted only by compelling reasons. In this case, the Court found no such reasons to excuse the petitioner's failure to timely file his motion for reconsideration.
• Doctrine of Non-Interference with the Ombudsman's Findings — Courts will generally not interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of the presence or absence of probable cause, as this is a function granted to it by the Constitution. Judicial review is limited to instances where there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaints.
• Finality of Ombudsman's Absolutory Decisions in Administrative Cases — Citing Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules, the Court reiterated that a decision exonerating a respondent in an administrative case is final and unappealable. This rule denies the complainant the right to appeal but does not preclude a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals if grave abuse of discretion is alleged.
• Proper Remedy for Ombudsman Decisions — The Court distinguished the proper legal avenues for challenging Ombudsman decisions: for administrative cases, the remedy is a petition for review under Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals (as established in Fabian v. Desierto), while for criminal cases, the remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court, but only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

• "The suspension of rules of procedure may only be considered under a very narrow band of compelling reasons and always in consideration that due process of law must be accorded to both parties—the prosecution and the accused."

• Fabian v. Hon. Desierto — Cited as the controlling precedent which declared Section 27 of R.A. 6770 unconstitutional and established that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc. — Referenced to support the principle that while there is a trend towards liberal application of procedural rules, zealous compliance remains the general rule, and relaxation requires compelling reasons.
• Tetangco v. Ombudsman — Cited to affirm the doctrine of non-interference, which dictates that courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion.
• Joson v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 210220-21) — A separate case involving the same petitioner, cited as recent precedent holding that the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative charge becomes final when the complainant fails to file the correct remedy (a petition for certiorari) before the Court of Appeals.

• Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Rule II, Sec. 7 and Rule III, Sec. 8) — These rules prescribe the five-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration in criminal cases and the ten-day period in administrative cases. The petitioner's failure to comply with these periods was a key reason for the dismissal of his petition.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Sec. 3(e), (g), (h) — These were the primary substantive laws that the respondents were accused of violating. The Ombudsman and the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the elements of these offenses.
• Revised Penal Code, Arts. 213, 215, 216, 217 — These articles concerning Frauds Against the Public Treasury, Prohibited Transactions, and Malversation of Public Funds formed part of the criminal complaint. The dismissal of these charges for lack of evidence was upheld.
• Rules of Court, Rule 43 and Rule 65 — The Court's analysis heavily relied on these rules to distinguish the proper procedural remedies for challenging Ombudsman decisions, highlighting the petitioner's procedural errors.