OMBUDSMAN v. CONTI

Office of the Ombudsman Vs. Nicasio A. Conti

G.R. No. 221296

February 22, 2017

FACTS:

This case stemmed from the filing of a complaint by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman against Chairman Camilo L. Sabio and Commissioners Narciso S. Nario, Teresito L. Javier, Ricardo M. Abcede, and Conti of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

On April 5, 2010, the Ombudsman ordered the PCGG Commissioners to file their respective counter-affidavits. All but Conti complied with the directive. Subsequently, two (2) criminal Informations against all of them were filed before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

On August 26, 2011, the Ombudsman found all five PCGG Commissioners administratively liable for Dishonesty, Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

On April 2, 2012, Conti moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman decision. Claiming that he was denied due process, he sought the reversal of the findings of the Ombudsman. 

The Ombudsman denied Conti's motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, Conti filed a petition for review before the CA.

In its May 19, 2015 Decision, the CA granted Conti's petition. It found that Conti was indeed deprived of due process as he did not receive a copy of the Ombudsman's order requiring him to file a counter-affidavit; that such denial of due process was not cured by the filing of his motion for reconsideration as it was filed precisely to raise the issue of the violation of his right to due process; that he was not even furnished copies of the affidavits and other pieces of evidence considered by the Ombudsman; and that, hence, he was deprived of a fair opportunity to squarely and intelligently answer the accusations hurled against him.

The CA denied the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the honorable court of appeals (12th Division) grievously erred in ruling that respondent Nicasio A. Conti was denied due process in OMB-C-A-10-0123-B.
2. Whether or not the honorable court of appeals (12th Division) grievously erred in finding that respondent Nicasio A. Conti is not liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

HELD:

The Court disagrees with the Ombudsman in citing the case of Ruivivar as Conti's situation was not similar to the cited case. In Ruivivar, the petitioner filed her motion for reconsideration and the Ombudsman acted on it, albeit belatedly, by issuing an Order that she be furnished with all the pleadings and other pertinent documents and allowing her to file, within ten (10) days from receipt, such pleading which she deemed fit under the circumstances. In the said case, however, the petitioner still failed to refute the charges against her.

In this case, Conti was never given an opportunity to air his side. He was not furnished with a copy of the Ombudsman order requiring him to file a counter-affidavit. This suffices as proof that Conti was not properly apprised of the cases against him.

In sum, the CA was correct in decreeing that Conti was deprived of his constitutional right to due process. At that point, it should have ordered the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. The CA, however, also resolved the issues on the substantive merits of the case. It was an error because Conti was only questioning the violation of his right to due process.

 The CA should have been more prudent to refrain from rendering judgment and instead remand the case to the Ombudsman to provide Conti the opportunity that he was deprived of by officially furnishing him with the complete records of the case and allowing him to file the appropriate pleadings in his defense.

Wherefore, the petition is partly granted. The  Decision and the Resolution of the CA in are reversed insofar as they touched on the merits of the case.

The case is remanded to the Ombudsman for appropriate action.