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

Petitioners, officers and members of the Board of Trustees of the Bureau of Fire Protection Mutual Aid & Beneficiary Association, Inc. (BFPMBAI), along with other complainants, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against private respondent Fire Chief Superintendent Carlito S. Romero. They alleged that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) existed between BFPMBAI and the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) for the periodic deduction and remittance of membership contributions from BFP personnel’s salaries to BFPMBAI. In February 2013, private respondent, as BFP Officer-in-Charge, issued a memorandum temporarily stopping these deductions and ordering a refund of January 2013 deductions, citing a pending legal resolution regarding the legitimate set of BFPMBAI officers. This controversy stemmed from a disputed BFPMBAI election held on June 30, 2012, where the Committee on Elections did not proclaim winners and issued a status quo ante order. Petitioners alleged that private respondent conditioned the release of remittances on his and his allies’ assumption to the BFPMBAI board, compelling petitioners to sign a resolution electing him as a trustee. They claimed his acts caused grave damage to BFPMBAI, violating Sections 3(e) and 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code (Grave Coercion), and constituted administrative offenses. Private respondent defended his actions as prudent management, filed a Complaint-in-Interpleader with the Regional Trial Court to resolve the leadership dispute, and asserted the withheld funds were reverted to the Bureau of the Treasury. The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal and administrative charges, a decision affirmed upon motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal and administrative charges against private respondent.

RULING

No, the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not tainted with arbitrariness. For the criminal charges under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the elements of causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence were not established. Private respondent’s act of suspending remittances was a prudent measure pending judicial resolution of the legitimate BFPMBAI board, done in good faith and with legal justification (the interpleader suit). For the charge under Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019 , the element of negligence was absent as private respondent acted precisely to avoid negligence by withholding funds from a disputedly constituted board. For the charge of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code, the element of violence or intimidation was not proven; the alleged “compulsion” to sign a board resolution was not shown to be effected by means of a threat constituting violence or intimidation. Regarding administrative charges, the same factual findings negated the presence of malice, corruption, or clear intent to violate the law required for grave misconduct, and the acts did not amount to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, oppression, or grave abuse of authority. The Petition for Certiorari was denied for failure to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s rulings were issued with grave abuse of discretion.