G.R. No. L-52446-48 - MAY 1980 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-52446-48May 15, 1980 Enrique B. Inting vs. Tanodbayan G.R. No. L-52699May 15, 1980 Renato U. Reyes vs. Com. on Elections G.R. No. L-24750May 16, 1980 Doroteo Banawa vs. Primitiva Mirano G.R. No. L-31771May 16, 1980 People of the Phil vs. Severo Curatchia G.R. No. L-35969May 16, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Celestino Villacores G.R. No. L-38019May 16, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Simeona Martin G.R. No. L-47178May 16, 1980 Estrella B. Ondoy vs. Virgilio Ignacio G.R. No. L-51773May 16, 1980 Rodrigo S. De Guzman vs. Marcelino M. Escalona G.R. No. L-24923May 17, 1980 Filipro, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Comp. G.R. No. L-36039May 17, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Leopoldo V. Abejero G.R. No. L-36510May 17, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio V. Viduya G.R. No. L-38072May 17, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Babasa G.R. No. L-38162May 17, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Pajanustan G.R. No. L-39140 & 39145May 17, 1980 Armed Forces of the Philippines vs. Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Asso., Inc. G.R. No. L-46908May 17, 1980 Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. Cms Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-49602 & L-49938May 17, 1980 Bernabe C. Zafra vs. City Warden G.R. No. L-50918May 17, 1980 Milagros B. La O vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-36554May 19, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Aguel G.R. No. L-47180May 19, 1980 Philippine American Accident Insurance Comp., Inc. vs. Jose P. Flores G.R. No. L-28858May 29, 1980 Aurora Camara Vda. De Zubiri vs. Teodulo C. Tandayag G.R. No. L-35406-07May 29, 1980 Manila Electric Company vs. Atty. Pangilalo Gaerlan G.R. No. L-49059May 29, 1980 Nueva Vizcaya Chamber of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51201May 29, 1980 Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-52278May 29, 1980 Marciana De Morales vs. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental G.R. No. L-41919-24May 30, 1980 Quirico P. Ungab vs. Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Enrique B. Inting vs. Tanodbayan Renato U. Reyes vs. Com. on Elections Doroteo Banawa vs. Primitiva Mirano People of the Phil vs. Severo Curatchia People of the Philippines vs. Celestino Villacores People of the Philippines vs. Simeona Martin Estrella B. Ondoy vs. Virgilio Ignacio Rodrigo S. De Guzman vs. Marcelino M. Escalona Filipro, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Comp. People of the Philippines vs. Leopoldo V. Abejero People of the Philippines vs. Antonio V. Viduya People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Babasa People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Pajanustan Armed Forces of the Philippines vs. Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Asso., Inc. Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. Cms Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al. Bernabe C. Zafra vs. City Warden Milagros B. La O vs. Employees' Compensation Commission People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Aguel Philippine American Accident Insurance Comp., Inc. vs. Jose P. Flores Aurora Camara Vda. De Zubiri vs. Teodulo C. Tandayag Manila Electric Company vs. Atty. Pangilalo Gaerlan Nueva Vizcaya Chamber of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte vs. Republic of the Phil. Marciana De Morales vs. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental Quirico P. Ungab vs. Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-52446-48 May 15, 1980

ENRIQUE B. INTING,petitioner,
vs.
THE TANODBAYAN, THE CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO, HONORABLE JUDGE MILAGROS C. NARTATEZ and ANGELINA S. SALCEDO,respondents.

ANTONIO,J:

Petition forcertiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction or restraining order asking this Court: (1) to restrain and/or enjoin respondent Tanodbayan from further interfering with the proceedings in I.S. Nos. 36 and 131 of the Fiscal's Office of Davao City and in Criminal Cases Nos. 3193-D, 3194-D and 3195-D of the City Court of Davao; (2) to restrain and/or enjoin the respondent City Fiscal of Davao from pursuing or implementing the directive of the Tanodbayan to seek the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 3193-D, 3194-D and 3195-D in the City Court of Davao, or from enforcing the resolutions of the Tanodbayan dated September 20 and December 4, 1979 and from further pursuing his motion to dismiss said cases; (3) to enjoin and/or restrain the respondent Presiding Judge of the City Court of Davao, Branch 1, from acting on the "Motion to Dismiss" dated January 22, 1980, filed by the respondent City Fiscal of Davao in Criminal Cases Nos. 3193-D, 3194-D and 3195-D; and (4) to nullify the entire proceedings and resolutions of the respondent Tanodbayan on the preliminary investigation and resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao in I.S. Nos. 36 and 131, with direction to said Tanodbayan to desist from further acting and/or interfering in said matters.

It appears that on December 9, 1977, petitioner endorsed to the City Fiscal of Davao complaints for perjury against respondent Angelina S. Salcedo on the ground that in the latter's sworn Personal Data Sheets (Civil Service Forms) of January 18, 1967, June 11, 1968, January 6, 1970 and January 5, 1976, she knowingly and falsely indicated that she completed the one-year Secretarial Science course at University of San Carlos in Cebu City from 1961 to 1962, although she was never enrolled in, and neither did she complete the Secretarial Science course from, the University of San Carlos.

After conducting a preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal of Davao, through Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte, found aprima faciecase for perjury and resolved to file three (3) separate counts of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code against respondent Angelina S. Salcedo.

Pursuant to said resoution, three (3) corresponding Informations were filed against respondent Angelina S. Salcedo in the City Court of Davao, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 3193-D, 3194-D and 3195-D, all for perjury.ℒαwρhi৷These three (3) Informations were later amended in order to show that the Personal Data Sheets of said respondent were subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Barbara Pioquinto, Clerk of Court, City of Davao, a person authorized by law to administer oath.

In April, 1978, private respondent, through her counsel, interposed an appeal to the Ministry of Justice (formerly Department of Justice) for a review of the resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao, findingprima faciecase for perjury on three counts against her, and dismissing, for insufficiency of evidence, the cases filed by her against petitioner for violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for estafa thru falsification of public documents. The Ministry of Justice, however, forwarded the records of the appealed case to the Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section 10 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 1630, which vests on the latter the power to file and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office.

In his letter dated September 20, 1979, addressed to the respondent City Fiscal of Davao City, Tanodbayan Vicente G. Ericta reversed the resolution of the former in I. S. Nos. 36 and 131 finding aprima faciecase for perjury on three counts against Angelina S. Salcedo and dismissing the cases of perjury, and sustained the resolution in I. S. No. 83 dismissing respondent Salcedo's complaint against petitioner for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and estafa thru falsification of public documents. In the same letter, Tanodbayan Vicente G. Ericta directed the City Fiscal to immediately move for dismissal of the three criminal cases for perjury against Angelina S. Salcedo.

In this petition, petitioner raises the issue of jurisdiction. According to him, the respondent Tanodbayan was without jurisdiction to review and nullify the resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao in 1. S. Nos. 36 and 13 1, and in ordering the latter to secure the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 3193-D, 3194-D and 3195-D because the powers of the Tanodbayan as prescribed in Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1630 are:têñ.£îhqwâ£

And since "administrative agency" is defined in Section 9 of the same Decree as:têñ.£îhqwâ£

the subject act or acts of respondent Salcedo, whether viewed as an administrative or offense, are not within the scope of the Tanodbayan's exercise of authority because she is an appurtenant of the judicial staff of the City Court of Davao. Petitioner further argues that the ruling of the Tanodbayan in his resolutions that the act of respondent Salcedo complained of was one "intimately connected with her employment" shall not be sustained because the extent of the Tanodbayan's authority, according to the afore-cited provision, is limited to "civil" and "administrative" cases and in offenses made "in relation" to the office. Also, the crimes of perjury charged against her were committed not in relation to her office as an Assistant Docket Clerk because the accomplishment of a Personal Data Sheet is not a peculiar or specific duty entrusted to the office of the Docket Clerk.

We find no merit to these contentions. It is not true that the Tanodbayan's authority to file and prosecute is limited to civil andadministrativecases and in offenses made in relation to the office. Presidential Decree No. 1630 provides that "he may file and prosecute civil and administrative cases involving graft and pt practices andsuch other offensescommitted by public offices and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporationsin relation to their office." (Emphasis supplied.) The same Presidential Decree also provides:têñ.£îhqwâ£

As correctly observed by the Tanodbayan, the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet, being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected with such employment and private respondent was already in the government service when the other Personal Data Sheets, subject matter of the Informations for perjury filed against her, were accomplished by her. The Tanodbayan is an administrative body whose main purpose is to give effect to the constitutional right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and efficiency in the government service. Section 6 of Article XIII of the Constitution specifically provides that the National Assembly shag create an office of the Ombudsman, to be known as Tanodbayan, which "shall receive and investigate complaints relative to public office, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, make appropriate recommendations, and in case of failure of justice as defined by law, file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper court or body." This provision and the laws creating and conferring upon the Tanodbayan investigative authority over certain offenses are sufficiently broad enough as to include the power now in question.

To construe the law otherwise would be to emasculate the authority of the Tanodbayan and disable it from discharging his duties effectively.

WHEREFORE,in view of the foregoing, the petition isDISMISSEDfor lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët