THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 9837, September 02, 2019

RANDY N. SEGURA, COMPLAINANT, v. PROSECUTOR MARILOU R.

GARACHICO-FABILA, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 filed by complainant Randy N.

Segura against respondent Associate Prosecution Attorney Marilou R. Garachico-
Fabila, charging the latter with violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 6.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

The antecedents are as follows:

Complainant alleged that in March 2008, his wife, Maria Erna A. Segura (Erna), filed
a complaint against him for violation of Section 5(e)(2) and (4) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9262,2 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004," before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Antipolo City. The
complaint was dismissed in a Resolution3 dated June 20, 2008. Dissatisfied, Erna
once again filed a complaint against him for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262
with the Philippine National Police, San Jose, Antique. The complaint was then
forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique.

In a Resolution4 dated April 13, 2010, respondent found probable cause and

recommended the filing of an Information against complainant for violation of Sec.
5(e)(2) of R.A. No. 9262.

In his complaint, complainant ascribed bias to respondent, saying that as early as

May 2, 2009, long before he received a subpoena from respondent in March 2010,
the latter was already investigating the case by inquiring from his work agency the
details of his contract. Complainant likewise imputed partiality on the part of
respondent for holding that he did not submit evidence to show that he was
providing financial support to his wife and children, when he so did. For
complainant, the foregoing actuations constitute a violation of the following:

I) The Lawyer's Oath:

x x x I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice x x x.

II) CANON 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

RULE 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

In her Comment,5 respondent narrated that the case was initially raffled to

Provincial Prosecutor Napoleon Abiera who issued a subpoena addressed to
complainant's residence. However, the return of the subpoena stated that
complainant could not be found at the indicated address and his whereabouts could
not be ascertained. Upon the retirement of Provincial Prosecutor Napoleon Abiera,
the case was re-raffled to respondent. Before issuing another subpoena, respondent
first ascertained complainant's true address and other circumstances such as his
employment as a seafarer with crewing management Vega Manila. Upon inquiry
therewith, however, the crewing management refused to divulge complainant's last
known address. Respondent then addressed the second subpoena to complainant's
parents' address.

Respondent denied being biased, saying that complainant was afforded due
process. Respondent even tried to locate complainant's whereabouts so he could be
served with the second subpoena. Moreover, the evidence submitted by
complainant during the preliminary investigation was insufficient to show that he
provided financial support to his family.

Upon submission of respondent's Comment, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.6

In his Report and Recommendation7 dated May 3, 2017, Investigating

Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera recommended the dismissal of the complaint
against respondent. The Investigating Commissioner was convinced that the
issuance of the second subpoena on complainant was to afford the latter an
opportunity to air his side. The Investigating Commissioner held that the public
prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists, and
whether the case should be filed in court. He further found that in issuing the April
13, 2010 Resolution,8 respondent was merely performing her function as a public
prosecutor.

Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the
complaint, against Pros. Marilou R. Garachico-Fabila be dismissed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.9

On June 29, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution 10 adopting the
findings of facts and recommendation of dismissal by the Investigating
Commissioner, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating

Commissioner to DISMISS the complaint.

From this resolution, no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed
by either party. Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Notice of
Resolution11 dated June 29, 2018 and records of the case were transmitted to the
Court.

Ruling of the Court

The Court dismisses the administrative complaint against respondent for lack of
jurisdiction.

In the case of Alicias vs. Atty. Macatangay, et al.,12 the Court pronounced that
jurisdiction over administrative cases against government lawyers relating to acts
committed in the performance of their official functions, lies with the Ombudsman
which exercises administrative supervision over them; thus:

Republic Act No. 6770 21 (R.A. No. 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman
Act of 1989," prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section
15, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 6770 provides:

Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency
of Government, the investigation of such cases.

The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative
disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any
government official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the government agency
responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government
officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
service by the Government to the people." In Samson vs. Restrivera, the Court
ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or
employee during his or her tenure. Consequently, acts or omissions of public
officials relating to the performance of their functions as government officials are
within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In Spouses Buffe vs. Secretary Gonzales,  the Court held that the IBP has no
jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses
involving their official duties. In the present case, the allegations in Alicias'
complaint against Atty. Macatangay, Atty. Zerna, Atty. Ronquillo, and Atty.
Buenaflor, which include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2) failure to
evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of CSC
Orders and Resolutions, all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their
official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no
jurisdiction over Alicias' complaint. These are acts or omissions connected with their
duties as government lawyers exercising official functions in the CSC and within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the Office of the
Ombudsman. [Emphasis omitted]

In the following recent cases, the Court made a similar ruling, i.e., dismissing the
administrative case for lack of jurisdiction. Thus-

In the Resolution dated February 21, 2018, A.C. No. 11920, (Manuel B. Trovela vs.
Maria Benet T. Santos-Madamba, Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig City; Luther T.
Ponpon, Reviewing Prosecutor of Pasig City; Jacinto G. Ang, City Prosecutor of
Pasig City; Hon. Leila M. De Lima, Former Secretary, Department of Justice; and
Hon. Vitaliano Aguierre II, Current Secretary, Department of Justice), 13 the Court
stated:

We dismiss the administrative complaint against the respondents for lack of

jurisdiction.

xxxx

In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant insists that Assistant City Prosecutor

Santos-Madamba, Reviewing Prosecutor Ponpon and City Prosecutor Ang be
declared to have gravely abused their discretion in issuing the October 17, 2011
resolution; and that Secretary De Lima and Secretary Aguirre be pronounced guilty
of gross neglect in not timely resolving his petition for review. x x x

xxxx
Considering that the acts being complained against undoubtedly arose from the
performance or discharge of official duties on the part of respondents Prosecutor
Santos-Madamba, Prosecutor Ponpon and City Prosecutor Ang, we declare and hold
that the authority to discipline said respondents exclusively pertained to former
Secretary Aguirre, their superior; and in the case of Secretary De Lima and
Secretary Aguirre, the authority to discipline belonged to the President. In either
case, the authority could also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman, which had
disciplinary jurisdiction over them as public officials pursuant to Section 15,
paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). The Court should
not assert any authority over all the respondents because their accountability as
officials performing or discharging their official duties is always to be differentiated
from their accountability as members of the Philippine Bar.

In Manuel B. Trovela vs. Michael B. Robles, Assistant City Prosecutor; Emmanuel L.

Obungen, Prosecutor II; Jacinto G. Ang, City Prosecutor; Claro A. Arellano,
Prosecutor General; and Leila M. De Lima, Former Secretary, Department of
Justice,14 the Court stated:

We dismiss the administrative case against the respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant has posited that Robles, Obungen and
Ang committed grave errors of facts and law that require an inquiry into their
mental and moral fitness as members of the Bar; and that Arellano and Secretary
De Lima be declared guilty of dereliction of duty or gross inexcusable negligence for
belatedly resolving his petition for review and motion for reconsideration. x x x

xxxx

The acts complained of undoubtedly arose from the respondents' performance or

discharge of official duties as prosecutors of the Department of Justice. Hence, the
authority to discipline respondents Robles, Obungen, Ang and Arellano exclusively
pertained to their superior, the Secretary of Justice. In the case of Secretary De
Lima, the authority to discipline pertained to the President. In either case, the
authority may also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman, which similarly
exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over them as public officials pursuant to Section
15, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). Indeed, the
accountability of respondents as officials performing or discharging their official
duties as lawyers of the Government is always to be differentiated from their
accountability as members of the Philippine Bar. The IBP has no jurisdiction to
investigate them as such lawyers.

xxxx
In the Resolution dated April 1, 2019, A.C. No. 10121 (Nid Anima vs. Prosecutor
Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas),15 the Court held:

After a careful review of the records of the case, We resolve to dismiss the instant
administrative case against Prosecutor Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas for lack of
jurisdiction.

In a number of cases, the Court has defined the line between the accountability of
government lawyers as members of the bar and as public officials. In Trovela vs.
Robles,  the Court has held that the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate
government lawyers charged with administrative offense in the exercise of their
official duties and functions. The Court further expounded that the authority to
discipline government lawyers is with the Secretary of Justice as their superior.

Moreover, the Office of the Ombudsman is clothed with disciplinary jurisdiction over
government lawyers as public officials, pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1, of
Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). Thus, the filing of the
administrative complaint for disbarment should be filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman.

As aptly found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the charges against the
respondent involved her functions as a prosecutor. Considering that the alleged
failure to furnish a copy of the resolution to complainant by respondent is an
exercise of official function as contemplated under the law, it follows that the act
complained of is within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The case at bar is substantially on all fours with the above-stated cases.

In his complaint, complainant imputes to respondent manifest bias and partiality in

the conduct of the preliminary investigation and issuance of the Resolution which
recommended the filing of a criminal case against him. The acts complained of
arose from respondent's performance or discharge of official duties as a public
prosecutor. Hence, the authority to investigate and discipline respondent
exclusively pertains to her superior, the Secretary of Justice. 16 The authority may
also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman which similarly exercises disciplinary
jurisdiction over public prosecutors as public officials pursuant to Section 15,
paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 6770.17 Indeed, respondent's accountability as an official
performing or discharging her official duties is always to be differentiated from her
accountability as a member of the Philippine Bar.18 For this reason, the IBP has no
jurisdiction to investigate respondent as such government lawyer.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice for whatever
appropriate action the Secretary may wish to take with respect to the complaint
against respondent Marilou R. Garachico-Fabila.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, (Chairperson), Leonen, and A. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Hernando, J., on official leave.

October 24, 2019

N O T I C E  O F  J U D G M E N T

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on September 2, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of
which was received by this Office on October 24, 2019 at 3:20 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

1
Rollo,  pp. 1-4.

2
 Section 5(e)(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of
financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the
woman's children insufficient financial support; x x x (4) Preventing the woman in
engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling
the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common
money, or properties. xxx

3
 Id. at 14-15.

4
 Id. at 72-76.

5
 Id. at 83-95.

6
 Resolution dated January 15, 2014, id. at 172.

7
 Id. at 391-398.

8
 Supra note 4.

9
 Id. at 398.

10
 Id. at 390.

11
 Id. at 390.

12
 803 Phil. 85, 90-92 (2017).

13
 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/66163?s_params=yp4e2K2q9q-
EXhCSfakH.

14
 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/64273?
s_params=lawvwVGgRWnYJiuixzef.

15
 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/67080?s_params=S-
Tv1wEMsfwLsnL3LfqS.

16
 See Manuel B. Trovela vs. Michael B. Robles, Assistant City Prosecutor;
Emmanuel L. Obungen, Prosecutor II; Jacinto G. Ang, City Prosecutor; Claro A.
Arellano, Prosecutor General; and Leila M. De Lima, Former Secretary, Department
of Justice, supra note 14.

17
 Id.

18
 See Manuel B. Trovela vs. Maria Benet T. Santos-Madamba, Assistant City
Prosecutor of Pasig City; Luther T. Ponpon, Reviewing Prosecutor of Pasig City;
Jacinto G. Ang, City Prosecutor of Pasig City; Hon. Leila M. De Lima, Former
Secretary, Department of Justice; and Hon. Vitaliano Aguierre II, Current
Secretary, Department of Justice, Respondents, supra note 13.