G.R. No. 192685 and G.R. No. 199115; July 31, 2013
OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, Registrar, Register of Deeds, Pasig City, FRANCIS SERRANO, YVONNE S. YUCHENGCO, and GEMA O. CHENG, Respondents.

FACTS

The consolidated cases originated from a series of agreements between ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and Malayan Insurance Company (MICO) for the development of “The Malayan Tower.” After ASB encountered financial difficulties and entered corporate rehabilitation, it executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with MICO on April 30, 2002. This MOA allowed MICO to assume the project’s completion and outlined the distribution of the condominium’s net saleable areas between the parties based on their respective capital investments. Petitioner Oscar R. Ampil, a creditor of ASB, later filed a criminal complaint with the Ombudsman against several respondents, including Registrar of Deeds Policarpio L. Espenesin. He alleged they conspired to falsify public documents and violate the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by registering deeds of sale for condominium units in favor of MICO and other private respondents, which he claimed violated the SEC’s suspension order in ASB’s rehabilitation case.
The Ombudsman dismissed Ampil’s criminal complaint. In a separate administrative case, it initially found respondent Espenesin guilty of Simple Misconduct for registering the documents, imposing a one-month suspension. However, upon Espenesin’s motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman reversed itself and exonerated him. Ampil challenged both the criminal dismissal (via certiorari) and the administrative exoneration (via appeal) before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint and in exonerating respondent Espenesin from administrative liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Ombudsman’s rulings. On the criminal aspect, the Court emphasized the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial discretion. It found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause for falsification or graft. The MOA between ASB and MICO validly governed the distribution of units, and the registered transactions were pursuant to this agreement, not in violation of the SEC order. The SEC order pertained to claims against ASB, not dispositions by ASB itself under a pre-existing contract.
Regarding the administrative charge against Espenesin, the Court ruled that his act of registering the documents was a ministerial duty under the Property Registration Decree. As Registrar of Deeds, he was mandated to register instruments that were valid on their face and complied with formal requirements. He had no authority to look beyond the facial validity of the documents or adjudicate the underlying legality of the transactions, which is a judicial function. Since the deeds presented for registration were regular on their face, Espenesin committed no misconduct in performing his ministerial duty. The Ombudsman’s reversal of his initial finding was thus correct and within its authority.