View full case

ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR v. OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over a fishpond owned by Paciencia Regala. The fishpond was leased by Regala's attorney-in-fact to Eduardo Lapid, who then sub-leased it to Rafael Lopez. Ernesto Salenga was hired as the fishpond watchman by Lapid and later rehired by Lopez. Salenga sent a demand letter to Lopez and Lapid for unpaid salaries and a share in the harvest, prompting him to file a complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB).

The case was assigned to Toribio E. Ilao, Jr., Provincial Adjudicator of DARAB, Pampanga. Salenga filed several motions, including a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which was issued. After the trial, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit by Ilao, Jr. Salenga appealed the decision. During the case, Antonio Baltazar filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Mariano, Jimenez, Ilao, Jr., and Salenga for violation of RA 3019.

The Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause against the respondents. Ilao, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation, which was denied. An Information was filed against the respondents, but Ilao, Jr. filed another motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation, which was granted. The complaint against all private respondents was dismissed after a re-investigation. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The trial prosecutor then moved for the dismissal of the case, which was granted. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging two errors committed by the Ombudsman.

ISSUES:

  1. Is the petitioner a party or a real party in interest to have the locus standi to pursue the instant petition?

  2. Can the agency be further delegated?

  3. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to pursue the action.

  4. Whether there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman warranting a reversal of the assailed orders.

  5. Whether respondent Ilao, Jr. had jurisdiction and properly exercised his discretion in issuing the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

  6. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its initial finding of probable cause.

  7. Whether the court can pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of probable cause.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner is not a real party in interest. While he may be the complainant in OMB-1-94-3425, he does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. He is a stranger to the agrarian case and has no privity of contract with the owner of the fishpond and principal of his agent. Therefore, he does not have locus standi to pursue the petition.

  2. The agency cannot be further delegated. The petitioner's principal, who is also an agent, cannot delegate his agency to another. Additionally, the Special Power of Attorney presented by the petitioner does not grant him the authority to act as a substitute agent. The delegation of agency must be distinguished from the appointment of a substitute.

  3. The petitioner does not have locus standi to pursue the action.

  4. Even if the petitioner has locus standi, there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.

  5. The respondent Ilao, Jr. correctly assumed jurisdiction and properly exercised his discretion in issuing the TRO. The issuance of the TRO does not reflect the final determination of the merits of the case.

  6. The court will not delve into the merits of the Ombudsman's reversal of its initial finding of probable cause. The petitioner failed to show that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering such reversal.

  7. The court will not pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of probable cause. It is the responsibility of the public prosecutor, in this case, the Ombudsman, to determine the existence of probable cause, which is supposed to be exercised at the start of criminal proceedings.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Office of the Ombudsman can act on anonymous complaints and motu proprio inquire into alleged improper official acts or omissions.

  • A non-lawyer can conduct litigation in person and appear for oneself only when he is a party to a legal controversy.

  • A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.

  • An agent cannot delegate to another the same agency.

  • The power once delegated cannot be re-delegated.

  • The delegation of agency must be distinguished from the appointment of a substitute.

  • Locus standi refers to the legal standing or capacity to bring a lawsuit.

  • The Ombudsman cannot be faulted for allowing the submission of a counter-affidavit when the Sandiganbayan ordered a reinvestigation.

  • The Sandiganbayan has the discretion to order a reinvestigation to give the accused an opportunity to submit his counter-affidavit.

  • Courts are given wide latitude to accord the accused ample opportunity to present controverting evidence even before trial as demanded by due process.

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

  • The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss.

  • The issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is within the sound discretion of the hearing officer. The existence of evidence supporting the need for a TRO and the lack of opposition from the other party can justify the issuance of a TRO.

  • The issuance of a temporary restraining order does not reflect the final determination of the merits of the case.

  • The court will not review a prosecutor's determination of probable cause unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  • The determination of the existence of probable cause is a function of the Ombudsman and should be exercised at the start of criminal proceedings.