G.R. No.

169098 October 12, 2006

MANUEL BAVIERA, petitioner, vs. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA

FACTS:

The Petitioner Manuel V. Baviera filed several complaints against officers or directors of the Standard
Chartered Bank (SCB), Philippine Branch, including Sridhar Raman, an Indian national who was the Chief
Finance Officer of the bank, as respondents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Baviera claimed that he was a former employee of the
bank, and an investor who was victimized by the officers or directors of SCB, all of whom conspired with
one another in defrauding him as well as the investing public by soliciting funds in unregistered and
unauthorized foreign stocks and securities.

Petitioner Baviera, through counsel, requested the Secretary of Justice for the issuance of a Hold
Departure Order (HDO) against some of the officers and directors of SCB, including Raman. Then
Secretary of Justice Simeon Datumanong issued an Order4 granting the request of Baviera. Meanwhile,
Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna, Austria, to attend a conference. Undersecretary Merceditas
Navarro-Gutierrez was designated as Acting Secretary of the DOJ in behalf.

When Raman arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) for his trip to Singapore but was
apprehended by BI agents and NAIA officials based on the HDO of the Secretary of Justice. It turned out
that Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierrez had verbally allowed the departure of Raman country despite
the HDO issued by Secretary Datumanong.

He averred that the actuations of respondent Gutierrez were illegal, highly irregular and questionable
and he also alleged that verbal special permission granted to Raman by respondent Gutierrez was illegal
as there is no specific law or DOJ rule allowing the grant of special permission or exception to an HDO.

ISSUE

(1) whether respondent officials committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint of petitioner against respondent Acting Secretary of
Justice Gutierrez for lack of probable cause.

HELD

No, The Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that the respondent officials committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s
exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
act at all in contemplation of law.

In dismissing petitioners’ petition for lack of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals cited the case of
Fabian vs. Desierto. The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.
 The Court has reviewed the assailed resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman, and finds that
petitioner likewise failed to establish probable cause for violation of Sections 3(a), (e) and (j) of RA No.
3019. Indeed, in the absence of a clear case of abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the
exercise of the Ombudsman’s discretion, who, based on his own findings and deliberate consideration of
the case, either dismisses a complaint or proceeds with it.