G.R. No. 203538, June 27, 2016
ARTEX DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ATTY. MARISSA E. TIMONES, ERLINDA O. MARTEJA, ELIMAR N. JOSE, and ATTY. LUIS Y. DEL MUNDO, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Artex Development Co., Inc. filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several public officers of the City of Manila, including the Register of Deeds, a Legal Officer, and members of the City Treasurer’s Auction Committee. Artex alleged that its properties in Binondo, Manila, with an appraised value of nearly Php100 million, were auctioned for delinquent real estate taxes for a significantly lower amount of about Php9.6 million to V.N. International Development Corporation (VN). Artex claimed the respondents conspired to prevent its lawful redemption of the properties. It cited the respondents’ refusal to accept its redemption payment on a pretext, their demand for unnecessary documents like proof of corporate term extension, and an alleged overture to sell the property directly to the bidder instead. Artex further alleged the Register of Deeds made it appear the original title was missing and issued a new one to VN prematurely, even before the redemption period expired and without a final deed of conveyance.
The respondents denied the allegations. The auction committee members asserted the bid price was based on the tax delinquency, not market value, and that Artex failed to present actual payment for redemption. They maintained issuing the certificate of non-redemption was a ministerial duty after the redemption period. The Register of Deeds argued her actions were routine recording duties, and the City Legal Officer stated he only verified the authenticity of documents and was not involved in the title cancellation. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient basis to prosecute for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act). Artex filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against the respondent public officers.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court’s power of judicial review over Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s finding of insufficient evidence to establish probable cause for graft does not fall under this category unless it is patently arbitrary or made without regard to the facts and law.
The Ombudsman correctly applied the elements for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, which requires the accused to be a public officer discharging administrative functions, who caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court agreed with the Ombudsman’s assessment that the evidence did not convincingly establish these elements. The alleged low bid price was anchored on the tax delinquency, not the property’s market value, as governed by the Local Government Code. The respondents’ actions, such as requesting document verification, were within their official functions and did not conclusively prove a conspiracy to block redemption in bad faith. The Ombudsman’s conclusion that the facts presented did not amount to probable cause was a reasonable exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial discretion. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, the Court upheld the dismissal.