July 23, 2018

Office of the Ombudsman, PETITIONER,

VS.
Bongais in his capacity as Housing and Homesite Regulation Officer IV of the City Housing and
Settlements Office, RESPONDENT.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The main dispute revolves around allegations of grave misconduct and dishonesty against Bongais for
his involvement in defrauding the Bank of the Philippine Islands Family Bank (BPI Family) in
connection with the loss of a parcel of land title.
Specific issues include the loss of the owner's duplicate copy of a land title, its subsequent
fraudulent transfer to Technoasia Airconditioning Refrigeration, Inc., and the use of the property as
collateral for a loan from BPI Family.
Events leading to the Ombudsman:
1. Loss of the owner's duplicate copy of a land title belonging to Ferdinand Noguera, which was under
Bongais's custody.
2. Execution of an Affidavit of Loss by Bongais on May 3, 2005, followed by an Affidavit of Recovery
on August 25, 2005.
3. Discovery of the cancellation of the title and its replacement with a new one issued to Technoasia
Airconditioning Refrigeration, Inc., after which the property was sold to spouses Reuel Rene and
Elizabeth Miravite.
4. Allegations of irregularities in the transaction between Technoasia and the spouses Miravite,
leading to suspicion of fraudulent activity involving Bongais.
Facts set before the Ombudsman:
Allegation of connivance and confederation with other public officers and private individuals to
defraud BPI Family.
Bongais's denial of involvement and assertion of due diligence in handling the lost land title.
Ombudsman's finding of grave misconduct against Bongais, leading to dismissal from service.
Ruling of the Ombudsman:
The Ombudsman found Bongais guilty of grave misconduct, primarily due to his failure to prevent the
loss of the land title and his alleged negligence in handling the document.
Issues appealed at the Court of Appeals (CA):
Bongais appealed the Ombudsman's ruling, seeking reconsideration of the penalty imposed.
Rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA):
The CA modified the Ombudsman's decision, finding Bongais guilty of simple neglect of duty instead
of grave misconduct. The penalty imposed was reduced to a six-month suspension.
The CA reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of grave misconduct and
that Bongais's actions could be attributed to simple neglect rather than intentional wrongdoing.
Overall, the Ombudsman's ruling was partially overturned by the Court of Appeals, reducing the
severity of the penalty imposed on Bongais.
Issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court (SC):
Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in denying the Ombudsman's Omnibus Motion to
Intervene in the case.
Points in the ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) and the governing laws:
1. Intervention is a remedy by which a third party becomes a litigant in a proceeding to protect or
preserve a right or interest affected by the proceedings.
2. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court prescribes the manner by which intervention may be sought.
3. Legal interest is required for intervention, defined as an actual, material, direct, and immediate
interest that will be affected by the judgment.
4. Intervention must be sought before the rendition of judgment by the trial court.
5. The Office of the Ombudsman has legal standing to intervene in appeals from its rulings in
administrative cases, as it acts as a champion of the people and preserves the integrity of the
public service.
6. The timeliness of intervention is crucial, and it must be made before judgment is rendered.
7. Exceptions to the timeliness requirement may be allowed in the interest of justice or to settle
substantive issues raised by the parties.
8. In this case, the Ombudsman's motion to intervene was filed after the CA had rendered its decision,
thus violating the timeliness requirement.
9. The Ombudsman failed to justify its belated intervention, and its failure to act sooner amounted to
a waiver of its legal standing to intervene.
10. The CA did not commit reversible error in denying the Ombudsman's motion to intervene.
11. The SC affirmed the CA decision and resolution denying the Ombudsman's intervention.
12. The petition is denied for lack of merit, and the decision and resolution of the CA are affirmed.
Decision:
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated April 7, 2016 and the Resolution dated
July 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139835 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Governing laws: Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, jurisprudence interpreting intervention, and the
constitutional and statutory powers of the Office of the Ombudsman.