THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9837. September 2, 2019.]

RANDY N. SEGURA , complainant , vs. PROSECUTOR MARILOU

R. GARACHICO-FABILA, respondent.

DECISION

INTING, J : p

Before the Court is an administrative complaint 1 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 Resolution 3
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 Resolution 4 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) Â 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) Â 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.
ISCDEA

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 Recommendation 7 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 bread 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 Resolution 11 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. Â 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. EDCTIa

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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
xxx xxx xxx
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.
I n 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 xADCIca

xxx xxx xxx

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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. ACTIHa

SO ORDERED.
Peralta, Leonen and A.B. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Hernando, * J., is on official leave.
Â
Footnotes

* On official leave.

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. x x x

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, 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.