GR 168157; (August, 2015) (Digest)

G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015
HILARIO P. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. CLEOFE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, president of Soriano Holdings Corporation, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against respondent Atty. Adonis C. Cleofe, the Acting Registrar of Deeds of Batangas City, for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The complaint stemmed from Atty. Cleofe’s cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-43029 in the name of Romeo L. Santos and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of Ma. Teresa S. Robles pursuant to a court order, without requiring the payment of capital gains tax and related fees. Soriano alleged that his corporation had acquired the subject land from Santos via a Deed of Assignment in 1999 and held the owner’s duplicate title, and that Cleofe’s act gave Robles unwarranted advantage and caused undue injury to his corporation, its lessee (First Coconut Rural Bank, Inc.), and the government in the amount of approximately ₱1.5 million in unpaid taxes. The Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation Officer Floriza A. Briones, found no probable cause and dismissed the complaint, a decision approved by Deputy Ombudsman Victor C. Fernandez. Soriano’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint against Atty. Adonis C. Cleofe for lack of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is a function constitutionally vested in the Ombudsman, and its discretion in this regard is generally not subject to judicial interference absent a clear showing of grave abuse. The Court found no such abuse. The Ombudsman correctly concluded that the elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not present. Atty. Cleofe acted pursuant to a final and executory order from a court of competent jurisdiction (the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City) which directed the cancellation of the old title and issuance of a new one in Robles’s name. His belief that the transaction was involuntary (by court order) and thus exempt from the immediate payment of capital gains tax was made in good faith, supported by a prior ruling from the Land Registration Authority (Consulta Case No. 2402). The Ombudsman’s finding that the complainant failed to overcome the presumption of good faith accorded to public officials was sustained. The proper remedy for Soriano’s claim of ownership was a separate civil action, not a criminal complaint for graft.