G.R. Nos. 225204-05, March 29, 2023
F/DIR. ROGELIO F. ASIGNADO (RET.), F/DIR. JOSE E. COLLADO (RET.), AND CINSP. ERNESTO S. PAGDANGANAN, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES AND F/CSUPT. CARLITO S. ROMERO (RET.), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a Petition for Certiorari challenging the Joint Resolution and Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that dismissed the complaint against respondent F/CSupt. Carlito S. Romero. The complaint stemmed from Romero’s act of temporarily holding in abeyance the remittance of salary deductions from Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) personnel to the BFP-Mutual Aid and Beneficiary Association, Inc. (BFP-MBAI). The OMB found no probable cause to hold Romero criminally liable for violation of Section 3(e) and Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 , and for Grave Coercion under the Revised Penal Code. The petitioners filed the petition directly before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the dismissal of both the criminal and administrative charges.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to criminally indict Romero for the alleged offenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa, upheld the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the OMB’s finding of no probable cause. The concurring opinion expounded on two main points:
1. Finality of the Administrative Aspect: The OMB’s exoneration of Romero from the administrative charges had attained finality. The petitioners improperly assailed the administrative component by filing a Rule 65 petition directly with the Supreme Court. The correct remedy for an unappealable OMB administrative ruling (such as exoneration) is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals. Due to this procedural misstep, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the administrative resolution.
2. Review of Probable Cause Finding: While the Court generally adopts a policy of non-interference with the OMB’s prosecutorial powers, it may exercise its power of judicial review when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, after examination, the OMB did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The concurring opinion agreed with the ponencia’s analysis that Romero’s act of temporarily halting the remittance of dues, which was done in the context of an intra-corporate dispute within the BFP-MBAI and upon the advice of the BFP’s legal service, was not attended by manifest partiality, bad faith, negligence, or any criminal intent. The elements of the charged offenses were not sufficiently established to engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed.