A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020
Manuel B. Tablizo, Complainant, vs. Attys. Joyrich M. Golangco, Adoracion A. Agbada, Elbert L. Bunagan, and Joaquin F. Salazar, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Manuel B. Tablizo filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon against two municipal mayors of Virac, Catanduanes, alleging violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards. He accused the mayors of implementing municipal tax ordinances they did not sign on every page as allegedly required by the Local Government Code. The cases were initially handled by respondents Atty. Elbert L. Bunagan and reviewed by Atty. Joaquin F. Salazar, who issued a Consolidated Resolution recommending dismissal for lack of merit, which was approved by the Ombudsman.
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which led to the cases being reassigned to respondents Atty. Joyrich M. Golangco and Atty. Adoracion A. Agbada. They issued a Consolidated Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, which was likewise approved. Dissatisfied, complainant filed the instant administrative case for Grave Misconduct against all four respondent lawyers before the Court, alleging they maliciously failed to properly investigate the charges. He also filed a similar complaint with the Ombudsman’s Internal Affairs Board, which was dismissed outright.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for Grave Misconduct in their handling of the Ombudsman cases filed by the complainant.

RULING

No, the respondents are not administratively liable. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The ruling is anchored on the principle that an administrative complaint against lawyers, particularly public prosecutors or investigating officers, is not the proper remedy to challenge the correctness of their findings, resolutions, or the exercise of their discretion, absent clear evidence of bad faith, malice, or dishonesty. The respondents, as graft investigation officers and directors, were performing their official duty to evaluate the complaints and the evidence presented.
The Court found no proof of malicious intent or gross misconduct. The complainant’s allegations essentially questioned the respondents’ legal judgment and the wisdom of their recommended dismissal of his cases. The Court emphasized that if the complainant believed the resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion, his proper recourse was to seek judicial review via the appropriate petitions, not to institute a disciplinary case. The failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims of bad faith with clear and convincing evidence, coupled with his failure to participate in the IBP proceedings, further weakened his position. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands in the absence of contrary evidence.