VILLA-IGNACIO v. OMBUDSMAN

DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO, Petitioner, - versus – OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BOARD OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, represented by its Chairman, ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, ELVIRA C. CHUA, and the SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 193092

February 21, 2017

FACTS:

The employees agreed that the contributions solicited in their December 2004 Christmas party charity drive would be donated to the typhoon victims in Quezon province for the construction of manual deep wells. After the flag ceremony, Assistant Special Prosecutor Elvira C. Chua donated P26,660 to the charity drive. Erlina C. Bernabe, who pooled the funds, issued a receipt in the name of Chua, stating that the donation was for the purchase of water pumps.

According to petitioner, he told the OSP employees in the succeeding flag assemblies that the contractor of the deep wells had declined the project. After soliciting suggestions, he proposed that these be donated to the Gawad Kalinga. He claimed that the employees agreed. On 1 September 2006, petitioner instructed Bernabe to apply for a manager's check amounting to P52,000, payable to Gawad Kalinga.

Two years after, Chua contested in letter the P26,660 donation to Gawad Kalinga. Bernabe replied that, as instructed by petitioner, the funds donated by private respondent had already been included in the OSP employees' donation to Gawad Kalinga. Claiming that petitioner and Bernabe had committed estafa when they gave her P26,660 to a different beneficiary, Chua lodged a Complaint against them before the IAB on 27 March 2008.

In her defense, Bernabe claimed that she never exercised any kind of authority or discretion over the funds, and that her actions were done only in compliance with the directives of petitioner, who was her superior. For his part, petitioner consistently questioned the proceedings of the IAB before Casimiro. He claimed that under the IAB's own rules, Casimiro should be disqualified from the proceedings because both the latter and Chua belonged to the same unit - the Office of the Ombudsman's Central Office.

In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner claims that respondents gravely abused their discretion by violating their own rules of procedure when they charged him with estafa.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they failed to observe their own rules in the conduct of their proceedings against petitioner

HELD:

YES. In this case, there is no dispute that Chua reports to the Central Office, which is the same as the unit of Casimiro. Straightforwardly, the latter should have been disqualified from acting on her complaint against petitioner.

The appreciation of the IAB is utterly incorrect. As can be read in paragraphs 2 and 3, Section III(N) of A.O. 16 patently disqualifies a person who belongs to the same component unit as any of the parties to the case, regardless of the timeframe that the acts complained of transpired. Clearly, the operative ground for disqualification arises when a member of the investigating and adjudicatory body is connected to the same unit as that of any parties of the to the case. There is no dispute that public respondents blatantly violated their own regulations by continuously disregarding the disqualification of Casimiro and utilizing a disallowed document as basis for the assailed ruling. Worse, the board did not remedy its breaches or give any reason to justify its transgressions.