GR 134509; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134509 ; April 12, 2005
VENANCIO R. NAVA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XI, DAVAO CITY, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Venancio R. Nava, then DECS Regional Director, was charged with Falsification of Official Documents thru Reckless Imprudence before the Sandiganbayan. The charge stemmed from his approval of a Plantilla Allocation List (PAL) for teachers, which was allegedly based on fake Equivalent Record Forms (ERFs). The Office of the Special Prosecutor, upon Nava’s motion for reinvestigation, recommended dismissal, finding that Nava, in the performance of his duties, relied in good faith on subordinates who certified the supporting documents and thus enjoyed the presumption of regularity. However, the Ombudsman disapproved this recommendation without providing any explanation.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving, without stated reason, the Special Prosecutor’s recommendation to dismiss the criminal case against Nava.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Ombudsman’s disapproval. The Court held that while the Ombudsman has the discretion to approve or disapprove a subordinate’s recommendation, this power is not absolute. The exercise of such discretion must not be done arbitrarily. When the Ombudsman reverses a finding of a lack of probable cause, he must provide the legal and factual bases for his action, especially when the initial finding is supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the Ombudsman’s unexplained disapproval of the well-reasoned Order recommending dismissal, which was based on the presumption of regularity and good faith reliance on subordinates, constituted a denial of due process. It left the petitioner without knowledge of the grounds for the reversal, preventing any meaningful challenge. The Court emphasized that a decision without a rational explanation is arbitrary and amounts to grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s disapproval was nullified, and the Order recommending dismissal was reinstated.