G.R. No. 136769; September 17, 2002
Ban Hua U. Flores, petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, and Atty. Enrique L. Flores, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

The petition stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner Ban Hua U. Flores with the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed as OMB-0-96-1175) against private respondent Hearing Officer Atty. Enrique L. Flores, Jr. of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The complaint accused the hearing officer of rendering an unjust judgment under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code and violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). This criminal complaint was based on a decision rendered by the hearing officer on May 3, 1995, in SEC Case No. 03328, which was filed by Johnny K.H. Uy against the petitioner and others for accounting and turnover of corporate funds. In that SEC case, the petitioner was declared in default, and after ex parte proceedings, the hearing officer rendered a decision ordering, among other things, the turnover of books, accounting of assets, payment of damages, cancellation of titles, and conveyance of properties. The petitioner appealed this decision to the SEC en banc, which reversed it except for the order of accounting. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding no showing that the hearing officer acted maliciously or in bad faith, and noting that the decision was corrected on appeal and did not become final. The Ombudsman’s resolution dated September 11, 1996, and order dated September 29, 1998, denying the motion for reconsideration, are assailed in this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against private respondent for violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the resolution and order of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For liability under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code (knowingly rendering unjust judgment), the offender must be a judge, and the act must be done in bad faith, malice, revenge, or similar motive. The private respondent was a hearing officer of the SEC, not a judge. For liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, the public officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Ombudsman found no evidence of bad faith, and the petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proof to show such bad faith. The Court also upheld the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the petition, although captioned as under Rule 45, was treated as one under Rule 65 (certiorari) as it alleged grave abuse of discretion.