G.R. No. 146731; January 13, 2004
AGUSTINA M. ENEMECIO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) and SERVANDO BERNANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Agustina Enemecio, a utility worker, filed administrative and criminal complaints against respondent Servando Bernante, an assistant professor, before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). The administrative complaint alleged gross misconduct, falsification, and defamation. Enemecio claimed Bernante spray-painted obscenities about her on campus walls, shouted defamatory words, and falsified his leave applications for May 1996 by stating he was on forced and vacation leave when he was actually serving a prison sentence for slight physical injuries, for which he still received his salary.
The Ombudsman jointly investigated the cases. It dismissed the administrative complaint, finding insufficient evidence that Bernante was responsible for the graffiti. Regarding the defamation, it ruled the alleged utterances were not connected to his official functions, making administrative liability premature pending the criminal case for oral defamation. On the falsification charge, the Ombudsman also dismissed the criminal complaint, reasoning that Bernante had no legal duty to disclose he would spend his leave in prison, and his duly approved application was valid regardless of how he used his earned leave credits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Enemecio’s petition for certiorari, which assailed the Ombudsman’s resolutions dismissing her complaints against Bernante.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings are generally beyond judicial review unless shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman acted within its investigatory and prosecutorial discretion. On the falsification charge, the essential element of a “legal obligation to disclose the truth” was absent. Bernante’s leave application, which was approved, did not require him to narrate how he would spend his earned leave; thus, no falsification occurred even if he was incarcerated. The Ombudsman’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove Bernante spray-painted the graffiti or that his alleged defamatory shouts were work-related was a factual determination accorded respect. The Court found no arbitrariness in the Ombudsman’s thorough evaluation and dismissal of the complaints. The Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright if found insufficient, and its exercise of this discretion was not gravely abused in this case.