G.R. No. 194157, July 30, 2014.
ROMEO R. ARAULLO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, HON. GERARDO C. NOGRALES, HON. ROMEO L. GO, HON. PERLITA B. VELASCO, HON. ARDEN S. ANNI, ATTY. FILOMEMO B. BALBIN, ATTY. ERNESTO P. TABAO and ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo R. Araullo obtained a final and favorable judgment in a labor complaint for illegal dismissal against Club Filipino. Following the finality of the decision, Araullo filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution. The case was re-raffled to Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni (LA Anni), who issued a writ of execution. Club Filipino filed a Motion to Recompute the judgment award and a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. Before the motion to quash could be heard, LA Anni issued an Order dated August 12, 2008, quashing the writ and lifting the notice of garnishment. LA Anni later inhibited himself from the case, citing that Club Filipino’s President, Atty. Roberto F. De Leon, and counsel, Atty. Ernesto P. Tabao, were his fraternity brothers. Araullo filed a petition to set aside LA Anni’s order, which was denied by the NLRC First Division composed of Chairman Gerardo C. Nograles, Commissioner Romeo L. Go, and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco. Araullo’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, Araullo filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents, charging them with violating Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code (unjust interlocutory order) and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Araullo alleged that LA Anni issued an unjust order without a hearing and without furnishing his counsel a copy of the motion to quash, and that the order was issued hastily to delay execution, giving undue advantage to Club Filipino due to fraternal ties. He also alleged that the NLRC Commissioners sustained the unjust order and that Atty. Filomemo B. Balbin, former Executive Assistant IV of a retired NLRC Chairman, was hired to influence the public respondents. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding that the deferral of execution was not attributable to the respondents, that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was not overcome, and that the rulings were in accordance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Araullo filed a Petition for Certiorari to assail the Ombudsman’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause against the respondents for alleged violations of Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers, except in a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s dismissal was based on valid grounds and explained clearly. On the charge of violating Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court held that the orders issued by LA Anni and affirmed by the NLRC were not unjust, as they were in accordance with Rule XI, Section 4 of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, which requires that further computation of an award be approved by the Labor Arbiter after notice and hearing before a writ of execution is issued. The quashal was necessary to rectify the prior issuance of a writ without complying with this rule. On the charge of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Court held that Araullo failed to prove the elements of the offense, particularly that the respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The mere allegation of fraternal ties, without proof of improper motive, was insufficient. The respondents’ actions were performed in accordance with law and procedural rules. The Court also noted that the alleged failure to furnish Araullo’s counsel a copy of the motion to quash did not prejudice his rights. Thus, the Ombudsman’s finding of lack of probable cause was sustained.