G.R. Nos. 256060-61, June 27, 2023
PORO EXIM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY JAIME VICENTE, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FELIX S. RACADIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Poro Exim Corporation, an authorized importer within the Poro Point Freeport Zone (PPFZ), filed a Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman criminally and administratively charging private respondent Felix S. Racadio. Respondent was the Director, President, and CEO of Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC), a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) without an original charter, which manages the PPFZ. The Complaint alleged that respondent, under the guise of conducting an investigation, unduly delayed the approval of petitioner’s applications for import permits covering a large shipment of vehicles, equipment, and parts, and issued a show-cause order threatening the revocation of petitioner’s Certificate of Registration. Petitioner claimed this delay was arbitrary, caused economic prejudice, and forced it to reroute its shipments through other ports. Respondent denied the allegations and asserted that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction over him because PPMC is a GOCC without an original charter. The Ombudsman dismissed the Complaint in a Joint Resolution dated April 2, 2018, citing Article XI, Section 13(2) of the Constitution and the case of Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, holding that its jurisdiction over GOCCs is limited to those with original charters. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated April 5, 2019.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over respondent, an official of a GOCC without an original charter.

RULING

Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is not confined solely to GOCCs with original charters. While Article XI, Section 13(2) of the Constitution refers to “government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter” in the context of certain directives, Section 13(1) broadly grants the Ombudsman the power to “investigate… any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency.” Furthermore, Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) empowers the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public officer or employee, and it has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by successive laws including Presidential Decree No. 1606, Republic Act No. 7975, and Republic Act No. 8249, explicitly includes crimes committed by public officers or employees “including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,” without distinction as to the existence of an original charter. This legislative intent to include all GOCC officials within the anti-graft jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and consequently the Ombudsman’s investigatory power, was affirmed in prior jurisprudence such as Layus v. Sandiganbayan and Garcia v. Office of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s myopic interpretation, limiting its jurisdiction based solely on the constitutional phrase in Section 13(2) while ignoring its broader constitutional and statutory mandates, was a patent and gross evasion of its positive duty to investigate. The Joint Resolution and Joint Order were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Ombudsman for further proceedings.