G.R. No. 228055 , January 23, 2023
RONALD REY TAN TISMO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, BASHER SARIP NOOR, AND MANUEL CASTRODES FELICIA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Lot 4 in Ala-e, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, registered under TCT No. T-9438 in the name of “ALFRED LARSEN III, ET AL.,” referring to co-owners Alfred Larsen III and his siblings Lily Evelyn Larsen-Tismo and Douglas Roland Larsen. On March 27, 2003, Alfred sold the property to respondent Basher Sarip Noor for ₱1,300,000.00 via a Deed of Absolute Sale without the consent of his co-owners. Respondent Manuel Castrodes Felicia, as Registrar of Deeds, cancelled TCT No. T-9438 and issued TCT No. T-88286 in Noor’s name. Petitioner Ronald Rey Tan Tismo, as attorney-in-fact of Evelyn and Douglas, filed a civil case for Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Quieting of Title, Annulment of Deed/s and Certificates of Title, and Damages (Civil Case No. 13-02-117) before the RTC of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, on February 18, 2013. Subsequently, on May 13, 2015, petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Noor and Felicia for: (a) violation of Section 3(a) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), docketed as OMB-M-C-15-0171 (criminal aspect); and (b) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and violation of R.A. No. 6713 , docketed as OMB-M-A-15-0195 (administrative aspect). Petitioner alleged conspiracy, fraudulent cancellation of title without the owner’s duplicate copy (which was in the possession of the co-owners), and non-payment of taxes. Noor claimed good faith, reliance on Alfred’s representation of sole ownership, and retirement from government service on January 12, 2015. Felicia admitted cancellation without the owner’s copy but cited an Affidavit of Loss executed by Alfred, and argued that the validity of the sale in the pending civil case constituted a prejudicial question. The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution dated October 26, 2015, dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question, stating that the issues in the civil case (recovery of property) were intimately related to the main issue in the Ombudsman case. The administrative complaint against Noor was also dismissed due to his prior retirement. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated June 20, 2016, prompting this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the criminal and administrative aspects of the complaint on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question.

RULING

The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court ruled that petitioner erroneously elevated the dismissal of the administrative aspect (OMB-M-A-15-0195) to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition. Pursuant to jurisprudence (Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon), the proper remedy for an Ombudsman ruling exonerating a respondent from administrative liability is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Thus, the administrative aspect of the petition is dismissed for being the wrong remedy and is deemed final. Regarding the criminal aspect (OMB-M-C-15-0171), the petition was correctly filed with the Supreme Court. The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint based on a prejudicial question. A prejudicial question, under the Rules of Court, exists in a criminal case when a civil action involves an issue intimately related to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the resolution of that issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed. Here, the pending civil case for recovery of ownership and annulment of documents does not determine the criminal liability of Noor and Felicia for violations of R.A. No. 3019 . The elements of the crimes under Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are separate from the issue of ownership validity. The criminal charges are based on alleged conspiracy, fraudulent cancellation of title without the owner’s duplicate copy, and non-payment of taxes—issues not dependent on the civil case’s outcome regarding ownership. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s dismissal on the ground of a prejudicial question was capricious and whimsical. The Court set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Order insofar as the criminal complaint is concerned and remanded the case to the Ombudsman for further proceedings.