FERRER V. OMBUDSMAN (ADMINISTRATIVE)

FIRST. Under Rule II, Section 2 of Admin Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), the investigating officer, upon evaluation of the complaint, shall recommend whether it may be:

1. dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;
2. referred to respondent for comment;
3. endorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case;
4. forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation;
5. referred for administrative adjudication; or
6. subjected to a preliminary investigation.

Therefore, the prerogative as to whether or not a complaint may be given due course belongs exclusively to the Office of the Ombudsman, through its assigned investigation officer, who in this case was GIO Gruta. Concurring with the recommendation of Gio Ginez-Jabalde to dismiss the complaint, similarly approved by then Ombudsman Desierto, does not necessarily indicate that Gio Gruta did not exercise her independent judgment in this case in concluding that the complaint lodged by petitioner lacks merit. To conduct a preliminary investigation when deemed unnecessary as the same issues being raised had already been resolved would be superfluous.

As regards petitioner's allegation of denial of his right to due process, it should be remembered that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given an opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.

SECOND. Petitioner posits that the Office of the Ombudsman erred in ruling that it had no jurisdiction to investigate charges of violation of RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law) for purposes of determining the probable criminal liability of respondents who were officials of NFA. This is erroneous.

The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute criminal cases pertains to violations of RA 3019, RA 1379, RA 6713, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to office.

On the other hand, in RA 5487, it is the Philippine National Police that exercises general supervision over the operation of all private detective and watchman security guard agencies. It has the exclusive authority to regulate and to issue the required licenses to operate security and protective agencies. In this case, in the absence of a declaration form the PNP that a violation of the said law was committed by Metroguard and DASIA, the act of the NFA officials in awarding the security service contracts to the said agencies after a showing that their bids were the most advantageous to the government is presumed to be valid.

Verily, the Court has almost always adopted and quite aptly, a POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers. The Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright without going through a preliminary investigation. To insulate the Office of the Ombudsman from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as RA 6770, saw it fit to endow that office with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. If the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his judgment call.

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION is an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism, No such circumstance obtains in this case.