GR 233234; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233234 , September 14, 2020
NAPOLEON C. TOLOSA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ELIZABETH B. TATEL, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Napoleon C. Tolosa, Jr. filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Elizabeth B. Tatel, the Chief Administrative Officer for Finance of DepEd Regional Office IX and Team Leader of the Automatic Payroll Deduction System (APDS) Task Force. The complaints alleged that respondent violated Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) and committed Grave Misconduct by obtaining a P150,000 loan from One Network Bank (ONB), a lending institution accredited under the DepEd’s APDS. Petitioner contended this created a conflict of interest, as her position involved monitoring accredited lenders, and that she attempted to hide the transaction by making payments through a different branch.
In her defense, respondent admitted obtaining the loan but asserted it was done in her personal capacity without using her official position for preferential terms. She explained that the APDS Task Force only monitors lenders for compliance with basic requirements like business permits and does not participate in accreditation decisions or loan approvals. She maintained there was no conflict of interest, as she had no ownership or managerial role in ONB, and argued the complaint was retaliatory due to her prior whistleblowing activities against anomalies involving petitioner’s wife.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal and administrative complaints against respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. On the criminal aspect, the Court reiterated that in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it does not review the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause on its merits. Its review is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion—a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman found no evidence that respondent solicited the loan or used her official function to secure it. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s conclusion was based on its evaluation of evidence and was not tainted with arbitrariness; thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion to warrant reversal.
Regarding the administrative charge, the Court noted that the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating respondent had already become final and executory. Under the Ombudsman Act and its rules, a decision absolving a respondent of administrative charges is final and unappealable. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which petitioner did. The CA correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal. The Ombudsman found no substantial evidence of dishonesty or misconduct, as respondent’s loan was not prohibited, and her SALN omission, raised belatedly, was not substantiated. The Court found no reason to deviate from these factual findings, which were supported by evidence.