GR 183623; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183623; June 25, 2012
LETICIA B. AGBAYANI, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and LOIDA MARCELINA J. GENABE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leticia Agbayani and respondent Loida Genabe were co-employees at the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. Agbayani filed a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against Genabe before the City Prosecutor, alleging that Genabe publicly uttered derogatory remarks against her at their workplace, including accusations of being a “feeling lawyer,” a case fixer (“nagbebenta ka ng kaso”), and wishing for her death. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for Grave Oral Defamation.
Upon Genabe’s petition for review, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed the finding. The DOJ ruled that the utterances, made in the heat of anger as supported by witness statements, constituted only Slight Oral Defamation. More critically, the DOJ directed the withdrawal of the information because the complaint failed to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation process under the Local Government Code, as the dispute arose at the workplace and was not among the exempted cases.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the DOJ Resolution which directed the withdrawal of the criminal information on the grounds of lack of prior barangay conciliation and a finding of only slight oral defamation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On procedural grounds, the Court held that the failure to allege prior barangay conciliation in the complaint-affidavit is fatal. Citing Section 408 of the Local Government Code, disputes arising at the workplace, like this one, must undergo the barangay conciliation process as a precondition for filing a case in court, unless an exception applies. No such exception was claimed or proven. This requirement applies to criminal cases covered by the law, and non-compliance warrants dismissal.
On the substantive finding, the Court sustained the DOJ’s characterization of the offense as Slight Oral Defamation. Following jurisprudence, the DOJ correctly considered the environmental circumstances, particularly that the remarks were uttered in the heat of anger and with provocation, which downgrades the crime from grave to slight. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, as filed before the CA, the inquiry is limited to whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. The DOJ’s evaluation, being supported by the evidence on record, was not arbitrary or capricious. The petition was thus denied for lack of merit.