VILLA-IGNACIO v. GUTIERREZ (CRUZ) donations in kind to the Kapuso Foundation of GMA 7 Network.

February 21, 2017 | Sereno, C.J | Due Process 2. The employees agreed that the monetary proceeds of their project would be
donated to the typhoon victims in Quezon province, specifically for the
PETITIONER: DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO construction of manual deep wells. Immediately after the flag ceremony,
RESPONDENTS: OMBUDSMAN private respondent Assistant Special Prosecutor Elvira C. Chua donated
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BOARD OF P26,660 to the charity drive. Erlina C. Bernabe, who pooled the funds,
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN represented by its Chairman, issued a receipt 5 in the name of Chua, stating that the donation was for the
ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, ELVIRA C. CHUA, and the SANDIGANBAYAN purchase of water pumps.
3. According to petitioner, he told the OSP employees in the succeeding flag
SUMMARY: Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio is the head of the Office of the Special assemblies that the contractor of the deep wells had declined the project.
Prosecutor (OSP) of the Office of the Ombudsman. He asked the employees of After
the OSP what to do with the monetary contributions solicited in their charity soliciting suggestions on the use of the funds they had raised, he proposed
drive. The employees agreed that the monetary proceeds of their project would that these be donated to the Gawad Kalinga Community Development
be donated to the typhoon victims in Quezon province, specifically for the Foundation, Inc. (Gawad Kalinga). He claimed that the employees
construction of manual deep wells. participated in the discussion and eventually agreed to donate the funds to
After informing the OSP employees that the contractor of the deep wells Gawad Kalinga.
declined the project, he solicited suggestions on the use of the funds. He 4. On 1 September 2006, petitioner instructed Bernabe to apply for a
proposed that these be donated to Gawad Kalinga Community Development manager's
Foundation, Inc. (Gawad Kalinga). He claimed that the employees participated check amounting to P52,000, payable to Gawad Kalinga. 6 The beneficiary
in the discussion and eventually agreed to donate the funds to Gawad Kalinga. issued an Official Receipt, 7 which was posted on the bulletin board of the
Private respondent Assistant Special Prosecutor Elvira C. Chua contested the OSP for the information of all of its employees.
donation to Gawad Kalinga. He lodged a complaint against Villa-Ignacio before 5. Two years after the charity drive, Chua contested the donation to Gawad
the Ombudsman's Internal Affairs Board (IAB), alleging that the latter Kalinga. In a letter dated 18 March 2008, 8 she wrote Bernabe asking about
committed estafa. The IAB, then chaired by Overall Deputy Ombudsman the P26,660 donation. Bernabe replied that, as instructed by petitioner, the
Orlando C. Casimiro, is the body that investigates the officials and personnel of funds donated by private respondent had already been included in the OSP
the Office of the Ombudsman. employees' donation to Gawad Kalinga.
Villa-Ignacio questioned the proceedings before Casimiro. He claimed that ISSUE/s:
under the IAB's own rules, A.O. 16, Casimiro should be disqualified from the Whether or not the Ombudsman, et al had gravely abused their discretion in
proceedings because both the latter and Chua belonged to the same unit - the allowing Casimiro to actively participate in the proceedings against Villa-
Office of the Ombudsman's Central Office. Despite Villa Ignacio’s claim, the Ignacio. -YES
IAB recommended the filing before the Sandiganbayan of an Information for
estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari 6led by petitioner Dennis M.
Code. It also ruled that A.O. 16 did not apply, since the questioned charity drive Villa Ignacio is GRANTED. The Resolution dated 4 February 2010 and Joint Order
transpired prior to the assignment of Chua to the Central Office. Ombudsman dated 4 June 2010 of the Of6ce of the Ombudsman's Internal Affairs Board approved
Merceditas N. Gutierrez approved the recommendation of the IAB. by the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-08-0132-D, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Information for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, filed
DOCTRINE: Clearly, the operative ground for disqualification arises when a before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Number SB-10-CRM-0110, is
member of the investigating and adjudicatory body is connected to the same DISMISSED.
unit as that of any of the parties to the case.
RATIO:
1. YES. The Ombudsman, et al committed grave abuse of discretion when they
failed to observe their own rules in the conduct of their proceedings against
FACTS: Villa-Ignacio. They blatantly violated their own regulations by continuously
1. In January 2005, during a flag ceremony, petitioner asked the employees of disregarding the disqualification of Casimiro. Certiorari, therefore, lies.
the OSP what to do with the monetary contributions solicited in their 2. As can be read in paragraphs 2 and 3, Section III(N) of A.O. 16 patently
December 2004 Christmas party charity drive. Earlier, they had given their 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 of the parties to the case. 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 Villa-Ignacio.
3. In Fabella v. Court of Appeals, the dismissed public-school teachers were
tried by an improperly constituted tribunal. The Court ruled therein that the
"committees were deemed to have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all
proceedings undertaken by them were necessarily void." Given that Villa-
Ignacio herein faced a similar predicament, we likewise rule that the
proceedings against him before the IAB, as approved by the Ombudsman,
are null and void.