Baltazar vs Ombudsman (Digest)

ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR v. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, EULOGIO M. MARIANO, JOSE D. JIMENEZ, JR.,TORIBIO E. ILAO, JR. and ERNESTO R. SALENGA 510 SCRA 74 December 6, 2006 (How subject matter ornature of the action determined) Case Digest FACTS:Paciencia Regala owns a seven (7)-hectare fishpond located at Sasmuan, Pampanga. Her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino R.Mercado leased the fishpond to Eduardo Lapid for a three (3)year period. Lessee Eduardo Lapid in turn sub-leased thefishpond to Rafael Lopez during the last seven (7) months of the original lease. Ernesto Salenga was hired by EduardoLapid as fishpond watchman ( bante-encargado ). In the sub-lease, Rafael Lopez rehired respondent Salenga. ErnestoSalenga Salenga, sent the demand letter to Rafael Lopez and Lourdes Lapid for unpaid salaries and non-payment of the 10% share in the harvest. Salenga was promted to file a Complaint b e f o r e t h e P r o vi vi n c i a l A gr gr a r i a n R ef ef o r m A dj dj u d i c a ti ti o n B o a r d ( P A R AB AB ) , R e g i o n I I I , San Fernando, Pampanga docketed as DARAB Case No. 552- P’93 entitled Ernesto R. Salenga v. Rafael L. Lopez and Lourdes L. Lapid for Maintenance Maintenance of Peaceful Possession, Possession, Collection of Sumof Sumof Money and Supervision of  Harvest.Pending resolution of the agrarian case, the instant case was instituted by pet it ioner Ant onio Balt az ar , an allegednephew of Faustino Mercado, through a Complaint-Affidavit a g a i ns ns t p r i v a t e r e s p o nd nd e n t s b e f o r e t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Om Ombudsman which was docketed as OMB-1-94-3425 entitled Antonio B. Baltazar v. Eulogio Mariano, Jose Jimenez, Jr.,Toribio Ilao, Jr. and Ernesto Salenga for violatio violation n of RA 3019. 3019. Petition Petitioner er maintain maintains s that that respond respondent ent Ilao, Ilao, Jr. had no jurisdict jurisdiction ion to hear hear and act on DARAB DARAB Case No. 552-P’9 552-P’93 3 filed filed by respond respondent ent Saleng Salenga a as there there was no tenancy relationbetween between respon respondent dent Salenga Salenga and and Rafael Rafael L. Lopez, Lopez, and and thus, thus, the the complaint complaint was was dismissib dismissible le on its face face.I .ISS SSUE UE:W :Whe heth ther er or not not the the pet petititio ione nerr has has lega legall stand standin ing g to pur pursu sue e the the inst instan antt peti petitition?W on?W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e O mb m b ud u d sm s m an a n l i ke ke wi w i s e e rr r r e d i n r e ve ve rs r s i ng ng h is i s o wn w n r es e s ol o l ut u t i on on w he h e re r e i t w as as r es ol v e d t ha t accused accused as Provin Provincial cial Agraria Agrarian n Adjudica Adjudicator tor has no jurisd jurisdictio iction n over a complain complaintt where there exist no tenancyre tenancyrelationship?HELD: The "real-party-in "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the partyentitled to the avails o f t he he suit . T h e C om om pl pl a i n t - Af A f f i da da v i t f i le le d befor e t he he O f f i ce ce of the Ombudsman, there is noquestion on his authority and legal standing. The Ombudsman can act on anonymous complaints and motu proprio inquire inquire into into alleged legedimproper improper offici official al acts acts oromissions omissions from whatever whatever source, source, e.g., e.g., anewspape newspaper. r.F Faustino Merc er cado, is an agen agentt himsel himselff and and as such such canno cannott furthe furtherr dele delega gate te his agen agency cy to anoth another er.. An agen agentt cannotdelegate cannotdelegate to another the same agency. Re-delegation Re-delegation of the agency would be detrimental to the principal as the secondagent has no privity of contract with the former. In the instant case, petitioner has no privity of contract with PacienciaRegala, owner of the fishpond and principal of Faustino Mercado. The facts clearly show that it was not the Ombudsman through the OSP who allowed resp respo ondent Ila Ilao, Jr. Jr. to submit mit his hisCoun Coun ter -Af fid avi t. It was the Sand iga nbay an who granted the prayed for re-investigation and ordered the OSP to conduct th the reinvestigation . The OSP simply followed the graft court’s directive to conduct the re-investigation afterthe Counter-Affidavit Counter-Affidavit of respondent Ilao, Jr. was filed. Indeed, petitioner petitioner did not contest nor  ques qu esttion the Augu Au gus st 29, 29 ,1997 1997 Order Order of the the graft graft court court.. Moreove Moreover, r, petiti petitioner oner did not not file any any reply-a reply-affi ffidavit davit in the the reinvestigationdespitenotice. The nature of the case is determined by the settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter isdetermined by the allegations of the complaint. The nature of an action is determined by the materialaverments in the c om o m pl p l a in in t a nd n d t h e c ha h a ra r a ct c t e r o f t h e r el e l i ef ef s ou o u gh g h t n ot o t b y t h e d ef e f e ns ns es es asserted in theanswer or motion to dismiss.Respondent Salenga’s complaint and its attac attachme hment nt clea clearly rly spe spells lls out out the juri jurisd sdic ictio tiona nall alleg allegati ations ons thathe thathe is an ag ri cu lt ur al tenant in possession of the fishpond and is about to be ejected from it, clearly,respondent Ilao, Jr. could not be faulted in assuming jurisdiction as said allegations characterize anagricultural dispute. Besides, whatever defense asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss is not to beconsidered in resolving the issue on jurisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the Order and the October  30, 1998 Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 23661 (OMB-1-94-3425) are hereby AFFIRMED

ADRIANO G. BAHIAN JR. Page 1

IN TOTO , withcosts against petitioner  employee.

ADRIANO G. BAHIAN JR. Page 2