GR 136062; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136062 ; April 7, 2005
TRIFILO MONTEBON, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. CORAZON TANGLAO-DACANAY, LEGAL COUNSEL AND/OR OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERT LIM, and EDWIN SALIMBANGON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Trifilo Montebon was appointed as an agent by Tradewinds Rattan and Handicraft, Inc. (TRHI), through its Vice-President Robert Lim, to process documents for rattan shipments. A criminal case for possession of rattan poles without a permit was filed against Montebon, but the RTC dismissed it after he paid the required forest charges. However, TRHI had already revoked his agency and appointed a new agent. When the DENR issued a Certificate of Minor Forest Products Origin (CMFPO) to Lim for TRHI, Montebon filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Lim, Salimbangon, and DENR officials for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, claiming they conspired to release the rattan poles illegally.
The Ombudsman initially found probable cause, but upon reinvestigation and appeal, the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila issued a Memorandum recommending the dismissal of the complaint against Lim and Salimbangon. It ruled that Montebon merely held the rattan poles as an agent of TRHI, the true owner, and that the company had paid all fees. Therefore, Lim and Salimbangon did not cause undue injury or obtain unwarranted benefit. Montebon’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the graft complaint against respondents Lim and Salimbangon.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed based on the evidence. This discretion is not subject to review by the Court unless it is exercised in a capricious, arbitrary, or despotic manner. In this case, the Ombudsman’s finding was based on a logical assessment of the facts: Montebon was only an agent of TRHI, and his authority had been revoked. The rattan poles rightfully belonged to TRHI, which had paid the necessary government charges. The issuance of the CMFPO to Lim, as an officer of the owner company, was therefore proper.
The Court further held that the petition essentially sought a review of factual determinations, which is not permissible in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction. It does not allow the Court to re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Ombudsman on factual matters. Since the Ombudsman’s decision was grounded on evidence and legal reasoning, and showed no arbitrariness, the Court upheld it. The petition failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention.