G.R. No.

136433 December 6, 2006 On June 5, 1993, sub-lessee Rafael Lopez wrote a letter to respondent Salenga informing the
latter that for the last two (2) months of the sub-lease, he had given the rights over the fishpond to
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, petitioner, Mario Palad and Ambit Perez for PhP 20,000.00.13 This prompted respondent Salenga to file a
vs. Complaint14 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB), Region III, San
HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, EULOGIO M. MARIANO, JOSE D. JIMENEZ, JR., TORIBIO E. Fernando, Pampanga docketed as DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 entitled Ernesto R. Salenga v.
ILAO, JR. and ERNESTO R. SALENGA, respondents. Rafael L. Lopez and Lourdes L. Lapid for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession, Collection of Sum
of Money and Supervision of Harvest. The Complaint was signed by respondent Jose D.
Jimenez, Jr., Legal Officer of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region III Office in San
Fernando, Pampanga, as counsel for respondent Salenga; whereas respondent Eulogio M.
Mariano was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR Region III. The case was assigned to respondent
DECISION Toribio E. Ilao, Jr., Provincial Adjudicator of DARAB, Pampanga.

On May 10, 1993, respondent Salenga amended his complaint. 15 The amendments included a
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.
VELASCO, JR., J.: However, before the prayer for the issuance of a TRO could be acted upon, on June 16, 1993,
respondent Salenga filed a Motion to Maintain Status Quo and to Issue Restraining Order16 which
was set for hearing on June 22, 1993. In the hearing, however, only respondent Salenga with his
The Case counsel appeared despite notice to the other parties. Consequently, the ex-partepresentation of
respondent Salenga’s evidence in support of the prayer for the issuance of a restraining order
Ascribing grave abuse of discretion to respondent Ombudsman, this Petition for Review on was allowed, since the motion was unopposed, and on July 21, 1993, respondent Ilao, Jr. issued
Certiorari,1 under Rule 45 pursuant to Section 27 of RA 6770,2 seeks to reverse and set aside the a TRO.17
November 26, 1997 Order3 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in OMB-1-94-3425 duly
approved by then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto on August 21, 1998, which recommended the Thereafter, respondent Salenga asked for supervision of the harvest, which the board sheriff did.
dismissal of the Information4 in Criminal Case No. 23661 filed before the Sandiganbayan against Accordingly, defendants Lopez and Lapid received their respective shares while respondent
respondents Pampanga Provincial Adjudicator Toribio E. Ilao, Jr., Chief Legal Officer Eulogio M. Salenga was given his share under protest. In the subsequent hearing for the issuance of a
Mariano and Legal Officer Jose D. Jimenez, Jr. (both of the DAR Legal Division in San Fernando, preliminary injunction, again, only respondent Salenga appeared and presented his evidence for
Pampanga), and Ernesto R. Salenga. The petition likewise seeks to set aside the October 30, the issuance of the writ.
1998 Memorandum5of the OSP duly approved by the Ombudsman on November 27, 1998 which
denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.6 Previously, the filing of the Information against
said respondents was authorized by the May 10, 1996 Resolution7 and October 3, 1996 Order8 of Pending resolution of the case, Faustino Mercado, as Attorney-in-Fact of the fishpond owner
the Ombudsman which found probable cause that they granted unwarranted benefits, advantage, Paciencia Regala, filed a motion to intervene which was granted by respondent Ilao, Jr. through
and preference to respondent Salenga in violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. 9 the November 15, 1993 Order. After the trial, respondent Ilao, Jr. rendered a Decision on May 29,
1995 dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit; but losing plaintiff, respondent Salenga, appealed
the decision before the DARAB Appellate Board.
The Facts
Complaint Before the Ombudsman
Paciencia Regala owns a seven (7)-hectare fishpond located at Sasmuan, Pampanga. Her
Attorney-in-Fact Faustino R. Mercado leased the fishpond for PhP 230,000.00 to Eduardo Lapid
for a three (3)-year period, that is, from August 7, 1990 to August 7, 1993.10 Lessee Eduardo On November 24, 1994, pending resolution of the agrarian case, the instant case was instituted
Lapid in turn sub-leased the fishpond to Rafael Lopez for PhP 50,000.00 during the last seven (7) by petitioner Antonio Baltazar, an alleged nephew of Faustino Mercado, through a Complaint-
months of the original lease, that is, from January 10, 1993 to August 7, 1993. 11 Respondent Affidavit18 against private respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman which was docketed
Ernesto Salenga was hired by Eduardo Lapid as fishpond watchman (bante-encargado). In the as OMB-1-94-3425 entitled Antonio B. Baltazar v. Eulogio Mariano, Jose Jimenez, Jr., Toribio
sub-lease, Rafael Lopez rehired respondent Salenga. Ilao, Jr. and Ernesto Salenga for violation of RA 3019. Petitioner charged private respondents of
conspiracy through the issuance of the TRO in allowing respondent Salenga to retain possession
of the fishpond, operate it, harvest the produce, and keep the sales under the safekeeping of
Meanwhile, on March 11, 1993, respondent Salenga, through a certain Francis Lagman, sent his other private respondents. Moreover, petitioner maintains that respondent Ilao, Jr. had no
January 28, 1993 demand letter12 to Rafael Lopez and Lourdes Lapid for unpaid salaries and jurisdiction to hear and act on DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 filed by respondent Salenga as there
non-payment of the 10% share in the harvest.
was no tenancy relation between respondent Salenga and Rafael L. Lopez, and thus, the ASSUMING OTHERWISE, THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN LIKEWISE ERRED IN
complaint was dismissible on its face. REVERSING HIS OWN RESOLUTION WHERE IT WAS RESOLVED THAT ACCUSED
AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN ADJUDICATOR HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER A
Through the December 14, 1994 Order,19 the Ombudsman required private respondents to file COMPLAINT WHERE THERE EXIST [sic] NO TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
their counter-affidavits, affidavits of their witnesses, and other controverting evidence. While the CONSIDERING [sic] COMPLAINANT IS NOT A TENANT BUT A "BANTE-
other respondents submitted their counter-affidavits, respondent Ilao, Jr. instead filed his ENCARGADO" OR WATCHMAN-OVERSEER HIRED FOR A SALARY OF P3,000.00
February 9, 1995 motion to dismiss, February 21, 1995 Reply, and March 24, 1995 Rejoinder. PER MONTH AS ALLEGED IN HIS OWN COMPLAINT.30

Ombudsman’s Determination of Probable Cause Before delving into the errors raised by petitioner, we first address the preliminary procedural
issue of the authority and locus standi of petitioner to pursue the instant petition.
On May 10, 1996, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution20 finding cause to bring respondents to
court, denying the motion to dismiss of respondent Ilao, Jr., and recommending the filing of an Preliminary Issue: Legal Standing
Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Subsequently, respondent Ilao, Jr. filed his
September 16, 1996 Motion for Reconsideration and/or Re-investigation21 which was denied Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice x x x on a given
through the October 3, 1996 Order.22 Consequently, the March 17, 1997 Information23 was filed question."31 In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule found in
against all the private respondents before the Sandiganbayan which was docketed as Criminal Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that "every action must be
Case No. 23661. prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." Accordingly, the "real-party-in
interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party
Before the graft court, respondent Ilao, Jr. filed his May 19, 1997 Motion for Reconsideration entitled to the avails of the suit."32 Succinctly put, the plaintiffs’ standing is based on their own
and/or Re-investigation which was granted through the August 29, 1997 Order.24 On September right to the relief sought.
8, 1997, respondent Ilao, Jr. subsequently filed his Counter-Affidavit25 with attachments while
petitioner did not file any reply-affidavit despite notice to him. The OSP of the Ombudsman The records show that petitioner is a non-lawyer appearing for himself and conducting litigation in
conducted the re-investigation; and the result of the re-investigation was embodied in the assailed person. Petitioner instituted the instant case before the Ombudsman in his own name. In so far as
November 26, 1997 Order26 which recommended the dismissal of the complaint in OMB-1-94- the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is concerned, there is no
3425 against all private respondents. Upon review, the Ombudsman approved the OSP’s question on his authority and legal standing. Indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman is mandated
recommendation on August 21, 1998. to "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,
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration27 was likewise denied by the OSP through the October unjust, improper or inefficient (emphasis supplied)." 33 The Ombudsman can act on anonymous
30, 1998 Memorandum28 which was approved by the Ombudsman on November 27, 1998. complaints and motu proprio inquire into alleged improper official acts or omissions from whatever
Consequently, the trial prosecutor moved orally before the Sandiganbayan for the dismissal of source, e.g., a newspaper.34Thus, any complainant may be entertained by the Ombudsman for
Criminal Case No. 23661 which was granted through the December 11, 1998 Order. 29 the latter to initiate an inquiry and investigation for alleged irregularities.

Thus, the instant petition is before us. However, filing the petition in person before this Court is another matter. The Rules allow a non-
lawyer to conduct litigation in person and appear for oneself only when he is a party to a legal
controversy. Section 34 of Rule 138 pertinently provides, thus:
The Issues
SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. – In the court of a justice of the peace a party
Petitioner raises two assignments of errors, to wit: may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct
THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE A MISPLACED his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar (emphases supplied).
INVESTIGATION AND/OR THE CASE WAS ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBAYAN. Petitioner has no legal standing
Is petitioner a party or a real party in interest to have the locus standi to pursue the instant Petitioner only surfaced in November 1994 as complainant before the Ombudsman. Aside from
petition? We answer in the negative. that, not being an agent of the parties in the agrarian case, he has no locus standi to pursue this
petition. He cannot be likened to an injured private complainant in a criminal complaint who has
While petitioner may be the complainant in OMB-1-94-3425, he is not a real party in interest. direct interest in the outcome of the criminal case.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure stipulates, thus:
More so, we note that the petition is not pursued as a public suit with petitioner asserting a "public
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to be right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, and doing so as a representative of the
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the general public. He is pursuing the instant case as an agent of an ineffective agency.
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Petitioner has not shown entitlement to judicial protection

The same concept is applied in criminal and administrative cases. Even if we consider the instant petition as a public suit, where we may consider petitioner suing
as a "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or "taxpayer," still petitioner has not adequately
In the case at bar which involves a criminal proceeding stemming from a civil (agrarian) case, it is shown that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other words, petitioner has not made out a
clear that petitioner is not a real party in interest. Except being the complainant, the records show sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or
that petitioner is a stranger to the agrarian case. It must be recalled that the undisputed owner of "taxpayer"; more so when there is no showing that he was injured by the dismissal of the criminal
the fishpond is Paciencia Regala, who intervened in DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 through her complaint before the Sandiganbayan.
Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Mercado in order to protect her interest. The motion for intervention
filed by Faustino Mercado, as agent of Paciencia Regala, was granted by respondent Provincial Based on the foregoing discussion, petitioner indubitably does not have locus standi to pursue
Adjudicator Ilao, Jr. through the November 15, 1993 Order in DARAB Case No. 552-P’93. this action and the instant petition must be forthwith dismissed on that score. Even
granting arguendo that he has locus standi, nonetheless, petitioner fails to show grave abuse of
Agency cannot be further delegated discretion of respondent Ombudsman to warrant a reversal of the assailed November 26, 1997
Order and the October 30, 1998 Memorandum.
Petitioner asserts that he is duly authorized by Faustino Mercado to institute the suit and
presented a Special Power of Attorney35 (SPA) from Faustino Mercado. However, such SPA is First Issue: Submission of Counter-Affidavit
unavailing for petitioner. For one, petitioner’s principal, Faustino Mercado, is an agent himself and
as such cannot further delegate his agency to another. Otherwise put, an agent cannot delegate The Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, ordered re-investigation
to another the same agency. The legal maxim potestas delegata non delegare potest; a power
once delegated cannot be re-delegated, while applied primarily in political law to the exercise of On the substantive aspect, in the first assignment of error, petitioner imputes grave abuse of
legislative power, is a principle of agency.36 For another, a re-delegation of the agency would be discretion on public respondent Ombudsman for allowing respondent Ilao, Jr. to submit his
detrimental to the principal as the second agent has no privity of contract with the former. In the Counter-Affidavit when the preliminary investigation was already concluded and an Information
instant case, petitioner has no privity of contract with Paciencia Regala, owner of the fishpond filed with the Sandiganbayan which assumed jurisdiction over the criminal case. This contention
and principal of Faustino Mercado. is utterly erroneous.

Moreover, while the Civil Code under Article 189237 allows the agent to appoint a substitute, such The facts clearly show that it was not the Ombudsman through the OSP who allowed respondent
is not the situation in the instant case. The SPA clearly delegates the agency to petitioner to Ilao, Jr. to submit his Counter-Affidavit. It was the Sandiganbayan who granted the prayed for re-
pursue the case and not merely as a substitute. Besides, it is clear in the aforecited Article that investigation and ordered the OSP to conduct the re-investigation through its August 29, 1997
what is allowed is a substitute and not a delegation of the agency. Order, as follows:

Clearly, petitioner is neither a real party in interest with regard to the agrarian case, nor is he a Considering the manifestation of Prosecutor Cicero Jurado, Jr. that accused Toribio E.
real party in interest in the criminal proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman as elevated to the Ilao, Jr. was not able to file his counter-affidavit in the preliminary investigation, there
Sandiganbayan. He is not a party who will be benefited or injured by the results of both cases. appears to be some basis for granting the motion of said accused for reinvestigation.

Petitioner: a stranger and not an injured private complainant

 WHEREFORE, accused Toribio E. Ilao, Jr. may file his counter-affidavit, with jurisdictional allegations that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is
documentary evidence attached, if any, with the Office of the Special Prosecutor within about to be ejected from it, clearly, respondent Ilao, Jr. could not be faulted in assuming
then (10) days from today. The prosecution is ordered to conduct a jurisdiction as said allegations characterize an agricultural dispute. Besides, whatever defense
reinvestigation within a period of thirty (30) days.38 (Emphases supplied.) asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss is not to be considered in resolving the issue on
jurisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant.
As it is, public respondent Ombudsman through the OSP did not exercise any discretion in
allowing respondent Ilao, Jr. to submit his Counter-Affidavit. The OSP simply followed the graft Issuance of TRO upon the sound discretion of hearing officer
court’s directive to conduct the re-investigation after the Counter-Affidavit of respondent Ilao, Jr.
was filed. Indeed, petitioner did not contest nor question the August 29, 1997 Order of the graft As regards the issuance of the TRO, considering the proper assumption of jurisdiction by
court. Moreover, petitioner did not file any reply-affidavit in the re-investigation despite notice. respondent Ilao, Jr., it can be readily culled from the antecedent facts that his issuance of the
TRO was a proper exercise of discretion. Firstly, the averments with evidence as to the existence
Re-investigation upon sound discretion of graft court of the need for the issuance of the restraining order were manifest in respondent Salenga’s
Motion to Maintain Status Quo and to Issue Restraining Order,43 the attached Police Investigation
Furthermore, neither can we fault the graft court in granting the prayed for re-investigation as it Report,44 and Medical Certificate.45 Secondly, only respondent Salenga attended the June 22,
can readily be seen from the antecedent facts that respondent Ilao, Jr. was not given the 1993 hearing despite notice to parties. Hence, Salenga’s motion was not only unopposed but his
opportunity to file his Counter-Affidavit. Respondent Ilao, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss with the evidence adduced ex-parte also adequately supported the issuance of the restraining order.
Ombudsman but such was not resolved before the Resolution—finding cause to bring
respondents to trial—was issued. In fact, respondent Ilao, Jr.’s motion to dismiss was resolved Premises considered, respondent Ilao, Jr. has correctly assumed jurisdiction and properly
only through the May 10, 1996 Resolution which recommended the filing of an Information. exercised his discretion in issuing the TRO—as respondent Ilao, Jr. aptly maintained that giving
Respondent Ilao, Jr.’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Re-investigation was denied and the due course to the complaint and issuing the TRO do not reflect the final determination of the
Information was filed with the graft court. merits of the case. Indeed, after hearing the case, respondent Ilao, Jr. rendered a Decision on
May 29, 1995 dismissing DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 for lack of merit.
Verily, courts are given wide latitude to accord the accused ample opportunity to present
controverting evidence even before trial as demanded by due process. Thus, we held in Villaflor Court will not review prosecutor’s determination of probable cause
v. Vivar that "[a] component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary investigation is a
statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused before trial. To deny their claim to a Finally, we will not delve into the merits of the Ombudsman’s reversal of its initial finding of
preliminary investigation would be to deprive them of the full measure of their right to due probable cause or cause to bring respondents to trial. Firstly, petitioner has not shown that the
process."39 Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering such reversal. Secondly, it is clear
from the records that the initial finding embodied in the May 10, 1996 Resolution was arrived at
Second Issue: Agrarian Dispute before the filing of respondent Ilao, Jr.’s Counter-Affidavit. Thirdly, it is the responsibility of the
public prosecutor, in this case the Ombudsman, to uphold the law, to prosecute the guilty, and to
Anent the second assignment of error, petitioner contends that DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 is not protect the innocent. Lastly, the function of determining the existence of probable cause is proper
an agrarian dispute and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. He maintains that for the Ombudsman in this case and we will not tread on the realm of this executive function to
respondent Salenga is not an agricultural tenant but a mere watchman of the fishpond owned by examine and assess evidence supplied by the parties, which is supposed to be exercised at the
Paciencia Regala. Moreover, petitioner further argues that Rafael Lopez and Lourdes Lapid, the start of criminal proceedings. In Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,46 as cited in Longos Rural
respondents in the DARAB case, are not the owners of the fishpond. Waterworks and Sanitation Association, Inc. v. Hon. Desierto,47 we had occasion to rule that we
cannot pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of
probable cause.48
Nature of the case determined by allegations in the complaint
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the November 26, 1997 Order
This argument is likewise bereft of merit. Indeed, as aptly pointed out by respondents and as and the October 30, 1998 Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Criminal Case
borne out by the antecedent facts, respondent Ilao, Jr. could not have acted otherwise. It is a No. 23661 (OMB-1-94-3425) are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO, with costs against petitioner.
settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint.40 The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and
the character of the relief sought,41 not by the defenses asserted in the answer or motion to SO ORDERED.
dismiss.42 Given that respondent Salenga’s complaint and its attachment clearly spells out the