FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 147640, October 16, 2006 ]JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG +
JOWETT K. GOLANGCO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 147762]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ATTY. JONE B. FUNG, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG +
JOWETT K. GOLANGCO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 147762]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ATTY. JONE B. FUNG, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Petitioners Jowett K. Golangco (Golangco) and the Office of the Ombudsman, in this consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assail the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP No. 57418 dated 24
August 2000 and its Resolution[2] dated 28 March 2001 setting aside the Resolution dated 13 March 1995 and the Order dated 25 September 1996 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-93-0149. The assailed Decision also directed the Office of the Ombudsman
to cause the withdrawal of the Information it filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 38 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Atty. Jone B. Fung," docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149444. The said Resolution and Order of the Office of
the Ombudsman found Atty. Jone B. Fung (respondent) guilty of oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from government service.
Respondent is an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and was, at that time, assigned as Officer-In-Charge of the Operations and Surveillance Division, Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch, Licensing and Regulation Office, under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On 1 February 1993, then DOLE Secretary Nieves Confesor received a letter from then Senator Ernesto Maceda bringing to her attention a letter-complaint of a certain Edwin Belarmino, an applicant for overseas employment with the Golangco and Monteverde recruitment agency [G&M (Phil.) Inc.]. In the letter-complaint, Belarmino alleged that he was required by the recruitment agency to pay P20,000.00 as initial payment of the total recruitment fee of P55,000.00 before his application as factory worker in Taiwan could be processed.
The DOLE Secretary referred the letter-complaint to the POEA Administrator who instructed the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office, headed by respondent, to conduct an on-the- spot investigation of the activities of G&M (Phil.) Inc. and to verify in particular the placement fee being charged as alleged in the letter-complaint. Respondent was likewise directed to conduct a discreet surveillance of the recruitment agency.
On 8 February 1993, some inspectors of the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office went to the office of G&M (Phil.) Inc. and inquired from petitioner Golangco, the President of G&M (Phil.) Inc., about the allegation that the agency collected excessive fees from its applicants. Petitioner Golangco denied such allegation.
On 10 February 1993, respondent dispatched SPO4 Domingo Bonita and SPO2 Alfonso Zacarias, PNP-CIS operatives, to perform a surveillance operation on the activities of the agency and to submit a written report of their findings and recommendations.
The PNP-CIS operatives proceeded to the premises of G&M (Phil.) Inc. located at 426 J. Nepomuceno St., San Miguel, Manila, where they posed as applicant-workers for Taiwan. They were entertained by Elizabeth Encenada (Encenada), who introduced herself as an employee of the agency. She gave them bio-data forms to fill up and a list of documents to prepare. The bio-data forms bore the letterhead and the control numbers of G&M (Phil.) Inc. Encenada informed the operatives that the total job placement fee per applicant was P55,000.00 payable as follows: P7,000.00 downpayment, P20,000.00 to be paid after submission of the requirements, and P28,000.00 payable at the airport prior to departure for Taiwan.
As a result of their surveillance, the operatives recommended that an entrapment operation be conducted on the employees of the agency.
On 15 February 1993, a joint POEA-CIS team headed by respondent with eight others as members, including SPO4 Bonita and SPO2 Zacarias, proceeded to the premises of G&M (Phil.) Inc. to conduct the said operation. SPO4 Bonita was entertained by Encenada. Thereafter, SPO4 Bonita handed P7,000.00 to Encenada as initial payment of the placement fee of P55,000.00. When Encenada received the money, she was arrested by the team.
During the arrest of Encenada, petitioner Golangco was not around. When he arrived, he, too, was arrested by the POEA-CIS team and was brought to the POEA Headquarters for investigation.
Petitioner Golangco left the POEA premises at around 7:30 p.m. after the termination of the investigation.
Subsequently, petitioner Golangco and Encenada were charged with violation of Articles 29, 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. Thereafter, Senior State Prosecutor Romeo A. Danosos issued a Resolution finding probable cause against Encenada for violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, and dismissing all the charges against petitioner Golangco.
Administrative cases were also hurled against G&M (Phil.) Inc. for violations of the Labor Code. However, the cases were dismissed based on the finding that there was no evidence adduced showing that the agency was involved in the illegal acts of Encenada.
Aggrieved by his arrest, petitioner Golangco filed a criminal complaint against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for arbitrary detention and violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The case was docketed as OMB-0-93-0407. An administrative complaint for oppression, abuse of authority, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the same incident was likewise filed against respondent which was docketed as OMB-ADM-0-93-0149.
In a Resolution dated 9 June 1993, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) II Mothalib C. Onos (GIO Onos) recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondent in OMB-0-93-0407. This recommendation was approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa in a Resolution dated 15 July 1993. Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of dismissal which was denied by GIO Onos in an Order dated 16 September 1993 and approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa on 28 October 1993.
Unfazed by the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner Golangco filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court entitled, "Jowett K. Golangco v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al." docketed as G.R. No. 112857.
In a Resolution dated 24 January 1994, this Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution which this Court denied in a Resolution dated 16 March 1994.
In the meantime, the administrative complaint against respondent, docketed as OMB- ADM-0-93-0149, proceeded independently of the criminal complaint. In a Resolution dated 13 March 1995, GIO II Celso R. Dao found respondent guilty of the administrative charges against him and recommended his dismissal from the service for cause with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of his leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification from further re-employment in the government. This Resolution was disapproved by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. who recommended the reassignment of the case to another graft investigating officer so that the administrative aspect of the case can "be reconciled with the facts found in the criminal aspect of the case." The recommendation of Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. was later approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa and the case was reassigned to GIO Onos.
Convinced that the administrative complaint against respondent was bereft of evidence, GIO Onos, in a Resolution dated 17 May 1995, recommended the dismissal of the same which was approved by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera, Jr. by authority of then Acting Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa on 14 June 1995.
Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 17 May 1995, which was denied by GIO Onos in an Order dated 9 August 1995.
When Aniano A. Desierto assumed the Office of the Ombudsman, he referred the Order dated 9 August 1995 of GIO Onos to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for further study.
Special Prosecution Officer I Lemuel M. De Guzman (De Guzman), to whom the case was assigned, issued a Memorandum dated 22 January 1996 finding probable cause against petitioner Golangco for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Thus, De Guzman recommended to Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto that the Resolutions dated 9 June 1993 and 16 September 1993 in the criminal complaint docketed as OMB-0-93-0407 be set aside, and that the information he prepared indicting respondent before the RTC for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 to be approved. De Guzman also recommended that GIO Onos' Resolution dated 9 August 1996 dismissing the administrative complaint against respondent be disapproved; that the Resolution of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman dated 17 May 1995 be set aside; that petitioner Golangco's motion for reconsideration be given due course; and that GIO Dao's Resolution dated 13 March 1995 finding respondent guilty of the administrative charge be approved.
On 12 February 1996, Ombudsman Desierto approved the Information charging respondent with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as well as the Resolution dated 13 March 1995 of GIO Dao finding respondent guilty of the administrative charges filed against him. Ombudsman Desierto disapproved GIO Onos' Resolution dated 17 May 1995 recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent, which, as earlier stated, had already been approved by Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera by authority of then Acting Ombudsman Villa.
With the Ombudsman's approval of the Information prepared by De Guzman, said information was subsequently filed before the RTC, Branch 38, Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149144.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of GIO Dao's Resolution dated 13 March 1995. GIO Dao denied the motion in an Order dated 25 September 1996. The Order of Denial was later approved by Ombudsman Desierto on 24 February 1997.
Disgruntled with the actions of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-93-0149, respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court impugning the validity of the foregoing Resolution and Order adjudging him guilty of oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The petition, docketed as G.R. No. 112857, was later referred to the Court of Appeals based on the doctrine laid down in Fabian v. Hon. Desierto[3] which vested in the Court of Appeals the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman pertaining to administrative disciplinary cases.
In a Decision dated 24 August 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the Ombudsman. It likewise directed the Ombudsman to cause the withdrawal of the information filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 38, in the criminal case filed against respondent, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149444.
Petitioner Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman separately filed motions for reconsideration of the decision. These motions were denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 28 March 2001.
Hence, these petitions.
In G.R. No. 147640, petitioner Golangco raises the following issues:
Respondent is charged with an administrative case for oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the arrest incident of petitioner Golangco.
Oppression has been defined as "an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority."[4]
Gross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect, for both involve specific acts of omission resulting in damage to another.[5]
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[6] It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless persons never fail to take on their own property.[7] In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.[8]
The Court defined misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.[9] As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.[10]
No such acts or omissions as defined has been committed by respondent.
The attendant circumstances leading to the arrest of Encenada and petitioner Golangco was a result of the surveillance and entrapment operations efficiently planned and carried out by POEA-CIS team headed by respondent. It will be recalled that the arrest incident started with the letter complaint against G&M (Phil.) Inc. of then Senator Ernesto Maceda to then Labor Secretary Confessor which the latter referred to the POEA. In turn, the POEA Administrator ordered a surveillance and investigation of G&M (Phil.) Inc. to be conducted by a joint POEA- CIS team headed by respondent. The surveillance and investigation operations established the following facts: that Encenada permanently occupied a table of her own at G&M (Phil.) Inc.; and that she conducted recruitment activities thereat by interviewing, screening and collecting payments and documents from the prospective applicants of G&M (Phil.) Inc.; and that Encenada was closely associating with the other employees of the agency and was discussing with the wife of petitioner Golangco matters relating to the employment status of applicants. These attendant circumstances and the fact that Encenada was not an employee included in the list of personnel submitted by the agency to the POEA to conduct recruitment activities, gave respondent and the POEA-CIS operatives more than reasonable ground to sustain the belief that petitioner Golangco authorized and allowed the illegal activities of Encenada inside the agency thereby violating Article 29 of the Labor Code which provides:
Article 29. Non-transferability of licence or authority-
Likewise, petitioners Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman assail the actuation of the Court of Appeals in taking cognizance of the criminal case against respondent and directing the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw Criminal Case No. 96-149144. This, according to petitioners, is in violation of established jurisprudence stating that the Court of Appeals has no authority to review the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Court agrees with the petitioners.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.[13] It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
In Kuizon v. Desierto,[14] this Court clarified:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo of G.R. No. 147762, pp. 29A-42; penned by Associate Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir with Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, concurring.
[2] Id. at 45-56.
[3] 356 Phil. 787 (1998).
[4] Salalima v. Guingona, Jr., 326 Phil. 847, 893 (1996).
[5] Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission, 328 Phil. 843, 858 (1996).
[6] Brucal v. Desierto, G.R. No. 152188, 8 July 2005, 463 SCRA 151, 166.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233-234.
[10] Id.
[11] Rollo of G.R. No. 147640, p. 429.
[12] G.R. No. L-46930, 10 June 1988, 162 SCRA 88, 98.
[13] Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 140619-24, 9 March 2001, 354 SCRA 158, 172.
[14] Id.
[15] Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102900, 2 October 1997, 345 SCRA 250, 266.
Respondent is an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and was, at that time, assigned as Officer-In-Charge of the Operations and Surveillance Division, Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch, Licensing and Regulation Office, under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On 1 February 1993, then DOLE Secretary Nieves Confesor received a letter from then Senator Ernesto Maceda bringing to her attention a letter-complaint of a certain Edwin Belarmino, an applicant for overseas employment with the Golangco and Monteverde recruitment agency [G&M (Phil.) Inc.]. In the letter-complaint, Belarmino alleged that he was required by the recruitment agency to pay P20,000.00 as initial payment of the total recruitment fee of P55,000.00 before his application as factory worker in Taiwan could be processed.
The DOLE Secretary referred the letter-complaint to the POEA Administrator who instructed the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office, headed by respondent, to conduct an on-the- spot investigation of the activities of G&M (Phil.) Inc. and to verify in particular the placement fee being charged as alleged in the letter-complaint. Respondent was likewise directed to conduct a discreet surveillance of the recruitment agency.
On 8 February 1993, some inspectors of the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office went to the office of G&M (Phil.) Inc. and inquired from petitioner Golangco, the President of G&M (Phil.) Inc., about the allegation that the agency collected excessive fees from its applicants. Petitioner Golangco denied such allegation.
On 10 February 1993, respondent dispatched SPO4 Domingo Bonita and SPO2 Alfonso Zacarias, PNP-CIS operatives, to perform a surveillance operation on the activities of the agency and to submit a written report of their findings and recommendations.
The PNP-CIS operatives proceeded to the premises of G&M (Phil.) Inc. located at 426 J. Nepomuceno St., San Miguel, Manila, where they posed as applicant-workers for Taiwan. They were entertained by Elizabeth Encenada (Encenada), who introduced herself as an employee of the agency. She gave them bio-data forms to fill up and a list of documents to prepare. The bio-data forms bore the letterhead and the control numbers of G&M (Phil.) Inc. Encenada informed the operatives that the total job placement fee per applicant was P55,000.00 payable as follows: P7,000.00 downpayment, P20,000.00 to be paid after submission of the requirements, and P28,000.00 payable at the airport prior to departure for Taiwan.
As a result of their surveillance, the operatives recommended that an entrapment operation be conducted on the employees of the agency.
On 15 February 1993, a joint POEA-CIS team headed by respondent with eight others as members, including SPO4 Bonita and SPO2 Zacarias, proceeded to the premises of G&M (Phil.) Inc. to conduct the said operation. SPO4 Bonita was entertained by Encenada. Thereafter, SPO4 Bonita handed P7,000.00 to Encenada as initial payment of the placement fee of P55,000.00. When Encenada received the money, she was arrested by the team.
During the arrest of Encenada, petitioner Golangco was not around. When he arrived, he, too, was arrested by the POEA-CIS team and was brought to the POEA Headquarters for investigation.
Petitioner Golangco left the POEA premises at around 7:30 p.m. after the termination of the investigation.
Subsequently, petitioner Golangco and Encenada were charged with violation of Articles 29, 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. Thereafter, Senior State Prosecutor Romeo A. Danosos issued a Resolution finding probable cause against Encenada for violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, and dismissing all the charges against petitioner Golangco.
Administrative cases were also hurled against G&M (Phil.) Inc. for violations of the Labor Code. However, the cases were dismissed based on the finding that there was no evidence adduced showing that the agency was involved in the illegal acts of Encenada.
Aggrieved by his arrest, petitioner Golangco filed a criminal complaint against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for arbitrary detention and violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The case was docketed as OMB-0-93-0407. An administrative complaint for oppression, abuse of authority, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the same incident was likewise filed against respondent which was docketed as OMB-ADM-0-93-0149.
In a Resolution dated 9 June 1993, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) II Mothalib C. Onos (GIO Onos) recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondent in OMB-0-93-0407. This recommendation was approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa in a Resolution dated 15 July 1993. Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of dismissal which was denied by GIO Onos in an Order dated 16 September 1993 and approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa on 28 October 1993.
Unfazed by the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner Golangco filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court entitled, "Jowett K. Golangco v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al." docketed as G.R. No. 112857.
In a Resolution dated 24 January 1994, this Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution which this Court denied in a Resolution dated 16 March 1994.
In the meantime, the administrative complaint against respondent, docketed as OMB- ADM-0-93-0149, proceeded independently of the criminal complaint. In a Resolution dated 13 March 1995, GIO II Celso R. Dao found respondent guilty of the administrative charges against him and recommended his dismissal from the service for cause with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of his leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification from further re-employment in the government. This Resolution was disapproved by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. who recommended the reassignment of the case to another graft investigating officer so that the administrative aspect of the case can "be reconciled with the facts found in the criminal aspect of the case." The recommendation of Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. was later approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa and the case was reassigned to GIO Onos.
Convinced that the administrative complaint against respondent was bereft of evidence, GIO Onos, in a Resolution dated 17 May 1995, recommended the dismissal of the same which was approved by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera, Jr. by authority of then Acting Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa on 14 June 1995.
Petitioner Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 17 May 1995, which was denied by GIO Onos in an Order dated 9 August 1995.
When Aniano A. Desierto assumed the Office of the Ombudsman, he referred the Order dated 9 August 1995 of GIO Onos to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for further study.
Special Prosecution Officer I Lemuel M. De Guzman (De Guzman), to whom the case was assigned, issued a Memorandum dated 22 January 1996 finding probable cause against petitioner Golangco for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Thus, De Guzman recommended to Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto that the Resolutions dated 9 June 1993 and 16 September 1993 in the criminal complaint docketed as OMB-0-93-0407 be set aside, and that the information he prepared indicting respondent before the RTC for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 to be approved. De Guzman also recommended that GIO Onos' Resolution dated 9 August 1996 dismissing the administrative complaint against respondent be disapproved; that the Resolution of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman dated 17 May 1995 be set aside; that petitioner Golangco's motion for reconsideration be given due course; and that GIO Dao's Resolution dated 13 March 1995 finding respondent guilty of the administrative charge be approved.
On 12 February 1996, Ombudsman Desierto approved the Information charging respondent with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as well as the Resolution dated 13 March 1995 of GIO Dao finding respondent guilty of the administrative charges filed against him. Ombudsman Desierto disapproved GIO Onos' Resolution dated 17 May 1995 recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent, which, as earlier stated, had already been approved by Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera by authority of then Acting Ombudsman Villa.
With the Ombudsman's approval of the Information prepared by De Guzman, said information was subsequently filed before the RTC, Branch 38, Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149144.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of GIO Dao's Resolution dated 13 March 1995. GIO Dao denied the motion in an Order dated 25 September 1996. The Order of Denial was later approved by Ombudsman Desierto on 24 February 1997.
Disgruntled with the actions of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-93-0149, respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court impugning the validity of the foregoing Resolution and Order adjudging him guilty of oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The petition, docketed as G.R. No. 112857, was later referred to the Court of Appeals based on the doctrine laid down in Fabian v. Hon. Desierto[3] which vested in the Court of Appeals the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman pertaining to administrative disciplinary cases.
In a Decision dated 24 August 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the Ombudsman. It likewise directed the Ombudsman to cause the withdrawal of the information filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 38, in the criminal case filed against respondent, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149444.
Petitioner Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman separately filed motions for reconsideration of the decision. These motions were denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 28 March 2001.
Hence, these petitions.
In G.R. No. 147640, petitioner Golangco raises the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT DECLARED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ORDER PETITIONER'S WARRANTLESS ARREST.In G.R. No. 147762, the Office of the Ombudsman submits the following issues:
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND RESPECT TO THE OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND IN CONSIDERING IT AS AN EX-OFFICIO COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN, LIKEWISE, RULING ON THE CRIMINAL ASPECT OF THE CASE IN DISREGARD OF THIS HONORABLE COURT'S RESOLUTION ISSUED IN G.R. NO. 128742 DATED FEBRUARY 14 2000.
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT A QUO HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE OMBUDSMAN IN THE CRIMINAL CASE OMB-0-93-0407, MUCH LESS DIRECT THE LATTER TO WITHDRAW SAID CASE ALREADY FILED WITH REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION PERTAINS ONLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY CASE OMB-ADM-0-93-0149 WHICH IS DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF SAID CRIMINAL CASE.Petitioners Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman posit that the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the Resolution of the Ombudsman and in ruling that respondent is not guilty of oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct for ordering the arrest and detention of petitioner Golangco. In support of this claim, petitioners insist that respondent failed to comply with the constitutional and procedural requirement when he effected petitioner Golangco's arrest without any valid warrant of arrest. Likewise, respondent cannot validly arrest petitioner Golangco without warrant as the latter did not commit any crime when he was arrested. Since the arrest was not lawful, ergo, respondent deserves the penalty of dismissal from service.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT EFFECTED A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST ON A DULY-LICENSED RECRUITER FOR ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF RECRUITMENT LICENSE OR AUTHORITY, AS DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLES 29 AND 39 (B) OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED, EVEN THOUGH SAID RECRUITER WAS NOT ACTUALLY COMMITTING OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SAID OFFENSE AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST.
Respondent is charged with an administrative case for oppression, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the arrest incident of petitioner Golangco.
Oppression has been defined as "an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority."[4]
Gross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect, for both involve specific acts of omission resulting in damage to another.[5]
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[6] It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless persons never fail to take on their own property.[7] In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.[8]
The Court defined misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.[9] As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.[10]
No such acts or omissions as defined has been committed by respondent.
The attendant circumstances leading to the arrest of Encenada and petitioner Golangco was a result of the surveillance and entrapment operations efficiently planned and carried out by POEA-CIS team headed by respondent. It will be recalled that the arrest incident started with the letter complaint against G&M (Phil.) Inc. of then Senator Ernesto Maceda to then Labor Secretary Confessor which the latter referred to the POEA. In turn, the POEA Administrator ordered a surveillance and investigation of G&M (Phil.) Inc. to be conducted by a joint POEA- CIS team headed by respondent. The surveillance and investigation operations established the following facts: that Encenada permanently occupied a table of her own at G&M (Phil.) Inc.; and that she conducted recruitment activities thereat by interviewing, screening and collecting payments and documents from the prospective applicants of G&M (Phil.) Inc.; and that Encenada was closely associating with the other employees of the agency and was discussing with the wife of petitioner Golangco matters relating to the employment status of applicants. These attendant circumstances and the fact that Encenada was not an employee included in the list of personnel submitted by the agency to the POEA to conduct recruitment activities, gave respondent and the POEA-CIS operatives more than reasonable ground to sustain the belief that petitioner Golangco authorized and allowed the illegal activities of Encenada inside the agency thereby violating Article 29 of the Labor Code which provides:
Article 29. Non-transferability of licence or authority-
No license or authority shall be used directly or indirectly by any person other than the one in whose favor it was issued or at any place other than that stated in the license or authority, nor may such license or authority be transferred, conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity. Any transfer of business address, appointment or designation of any agent or representative including the establishment of additional offices anywhere shall be subject to the prior approval of the Department of Labor.That respondent honestly believed that petitioner Golangco was violating Article 29 of the Labor Code when the arrest was made can be gleaned from respondent's opinion on the applicability of the said provision embodied in his Memorandum dated 10 May 1995 sent to his superior, the Officer-In-Charge of the Licensing and Regulation Office, POEA, viz:
This Office could not close its eyes (from) the prevalent malpractices committed by the licensed agencies of simply engaging unregistered employees in their recruitment business for purposes of collecting money from unwary job seekers and then later, deny them as its employees in order to escape from liability. This is exactly what was envisioned under Article 29 of the Labor Code. Otherwise, said provision is just a useless provision.[11]Verily, from the foregoing disquisition, the conduct of respondent in arresting petitioner Golangco was far from being oppressive, malicious, grossly negligent, inefficient or abusive. On the contrary, respondent was just doing his legal duty as a government official tasked with enforcing the law. On this score, Sanders v. Veridiano II [12] is quite relevant:
[E]ven under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith, which has not been overturned by the private respondents. Even mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are not actionable as long as it is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.Perforce, the Court of Appeals did not err when it held that respondent is not liable for the administrative charge hurled against him.
Likewise, petitioners Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman assail the actuation of the Court of Appeals in taking cognizance of the criminal case against respondent and directing the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw Criminal Case No. 96-149144. This, according to petitioners, is in violation of established jurisprudence stating that the Court of Appeals has no authority to review the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Court agrees with the petitioners.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.[13] It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
In Kuizon v. Desierto,[14] this Court clarified:
The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In the Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal actionIn the case under consideration, the Court of Appeals, instead of confining itself to the administrative case appealed before it, reviewed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-93-0407 finding probable cause against respondent. The Court of Appeals further ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw the criminal information filed by the same with the RTC of Manila docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-149144. Such act by the Court of Appeals cannot be countenanced. It is settled that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void.[15] Since the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling on the same is void.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
|
(1)
|
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 24 August 2000 and its Resolution dated 28 March 2001 insofar as it ruled that respondent Jose B. Fung is not liable for the administrative charge in OMB-ADM-0-93-0149 is AFFIRMED; and
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
The same Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals directing the withdrawal of Criminal Case No. 96-149144 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Manila, is VOID.
|
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo of G.R. No. 147762, pp. 29A-42; penned by Associate Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir with Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, concurring.
[2] Id. at 45-56.
[3] 356 Phil. 787 (1998).
[4] Salalima v. Guingona, Jr., 326 Phil. 847, 893 (1996).
[5] Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission, 328 Phil. 843, 858 (1996).
[6] Brucal v. Desierto, G.R. No. 152188, 8 July 2005, 463 SCRA 151, 166.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233-234.
[10] Id.
[11] Rollo of G.R. No. 147640, p. 429.
[12] G.R. No. L-46930, 10 June 1988, 162 SCRA 88, 98.
[13] Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 140619-24, 9 March 2001, 354 SCRA 158, 172.
[14] Id.
[15] Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102900, 2 October 1997, 345 SCRA 250, 266.