GR 239168; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239168 , September 15, 2020
ALFREDO J. NON, GLORIA VICTORIA C. YAP-TARUC, JOSEFINA PATRICIA A. MAGPALE-ASIRIT AND GERONIMO D. STA. ANA, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ALYANSA PARA SA BAGONG PILIPINAS, INC., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) issued Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015, mandating a Competitive Selection Process (CSP) for power supply agreements (PSAs) to ensure transparency and competitive pricing, effective November 6, 2015. PSAs already filed and pending ERC review were exempt. Subsequently, the ERC, through its commissioners (petitioners), issued Resolution No. 1, Series of 2016, which extended the CSP requirement’s effectivity date to April 30, 2016. During this extension, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) executed and filed seven PSAs. Respondent Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. (ABP) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging petitioners violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by granting undue favor to MERALCO through the extension, causing undue injury to the public via potentially overpriced power rates.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , ruling that the extension was issued with manifest partiality and bad faith, granting unwarranted benefits to MERALCO. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion as the act was done in the regular performance of official duty and there was no clear evidence of criminal intent.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion as its finding of probable cause was not supported by substantial evidence. For a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence must be present. The Court found that petitioners’ act of issuing the extension was a legitimate exercise of their quasi-legislative power to provide a transition period for stakeholders to comply with the new CSP policy. The extension was motivated by practical considerations and queries from industry players, not by a deliberate intent to favor MERALCO.
The Court emphasized that bad faith or partiality cannot be presumed from the mere issuance of the resolution or the subsequent filing of PSAs by MERALCO. There was no direct evidence demonstrating that petitioners acted with a malicious motive or conscious wrongdoing to benefit a private party. The Ombudsman’s finding was based on mere conjecture and suspicion, which is insufficient to establish probable cause for a criminal offense requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s determination was rendered with grave abuse of discretion, warranting judicial correction.